Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/christianityitsnOOpeakrich 


CHRISTIANITY:    ITS    NATURE 
AND   ITS   TRUTH 


411    KtGHTS  RSSMRVED 


CHRISTIANITY 

ITS    NATURE    AND 

ITS   TRUTH 


BY 

ARTHUR   S.    PEAKE,   D.D. 

PKOFKSSOX  OF  BIBLICAL  KXSGXSIS  IM  tUE   ONIVSRSITT  OF   MANCHBSm 


NEW    YORK 
THOMAS  Y.  CROWELL  &  CO. 

PUBLISHERS 


rLTMOUTH,  BN9LAND 

WILLIAM   BRBNOON   AND  SON,   LTD. 

PRINTKM 


PREFACE 

IT  has  long  been  the  writer's  conviction  that  more 
ought  to  be  done  to  expound  the  truths  of 
Christianity  and  the  grounds  on  which  they  may  still 
be  accepted.  The  task  is  especially  urgent  for  the 
sake  of  the  young  people  in  our  churches,  who  are 
slipping  away  from  the  faith  because  they  have  been 
trained  neither  to  understand  nor  to  defend  it.  The 
present  volume  is  intended  as  a  modest  contribution 
to  this  object.  It  should  be  judged  in  the  light  of 
its  aim.  It  is  addressed  to  those  who  are  willing  to 
read  a  discussion  of  the  deepest  things,  provided  that 
it  is  simple  and  popular  in  its  treatment,  and  avoids 
the  abstruse  and  technical.  Much  has  accordingly  been 
omitted  which  must  have  found  a  place  in  a  formal 
treatise  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Apologetics, 
while  even  in  the  subjects  discussed  some  aspects  have 
been  ignored  as  inappropriate  to  those  for  whom  the 
volume  is  primarily  designed.  It  was  also  necessary, 
for  the  same  reasons,  to  restrict  the  size  of  the  book, 
and  several  chapters  have  been  left  out  that  readers 
might  not  be  repelled  by  its  length.  Wliile  many 
of  the  topics  discussed  are  matters  of  controversy 


vl  Preface 

among  Christian  people,  care  has  been  taken  to  exclude 
those  subjects  on  which  the  lines  of  theological  coincide 
with  the  lines  of  denominational  cleavage.  And  while 
the  author  has  not  hesitated  to  express  his  own  con- 
viction on  matters  of  debate,  he  trusts  that  he  has  not 
wounded  the  feelings  of  those  who  take  a  different 
view. 

Considerable  portions  of  the  volume  have  appeared 
in  The  Sunday  Strand,  but  they  have  been  revised  and 
expanded,  and  several  new  chapters  have  been  added. 
The  author  has  received  so  many  requests  for  their 
republication,  enforced  by  assurances  of  the  help 
which  they  have  given,  that  he  trusts  they  may  con- 
tribute in  their  completer  form  to  a  firmer  grasp  and 
clearer  perception  of  the  nature  and  the  truth  of  the 
vital  facts  and  principles  on  which  Christianity  depends 
for  its  very  existence. 


TO 

SIR   WILLIAM   P.    HARTLEY 

LARGK-HEARTED  IN  PHILANTHROPY 

FERTILE  AND  SAGACIOUS  IN  COUNSEL 

FAITHFUL  IN  THE  STEWARDSHIP  OF  WEALTH 

I  DEDICATE  THIS  VOLUME 

IN  GRATITUDE  FOR  THE  PRIVILEGE  OF  HIS  FRIENDSHIP 

IN  ADMIRATION  OF  HIS  CONSPICUOUS  SERVICES 

TO  THE  CAUSE  OF  MINISTERIAL  TRAINING 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    I 

WHAT  IS   RELIGION  ? 

FAGB 

Religion  is  neitlier  cultus,  creed,  nor  conduct,  but  fellowship 
with  the  Unseen i 

It  is  the  inevitable  creation  of  man's  spiritual  nature      .        .        2 

While  other  elements  enter  into  it,  emotion  is  its  central  con- 
stituent .        .  .  .  .  •         .         •         3 

The  preacher  ought,  therefore,  to  appeal  to  emotion,  but  to 
worthy  emotion  in  a  worthy  way 5 

Religion  and  morality 8 

The  definition  of  religion  as  "  morality  touched  by  emotion  " 
is  quite  wide  of  the  mark 9 

For  religion  may  be  immorality  touched  by  emotion,  or  it  may 
transcend  the  sphere  of  conduct,  while  morality  may  be 
saturated  with  emotion  without  becoming  religion      .         .         9 

Morality  and  religion  are  radically  distinct  and  often  mutually 
antagonistic 12 

Yet  each  must  have  its  full  rights  maintained         .         .         .14 

The  reUgion  of  Israel  and  Christianity  secured  the  complete 
fusion  of  the  two 15 

The  low  level  of  morality  in  Christendom  due  partly  to  sur- 
vival of  paganism,  partly  to  combination  of  rudimentary 
moral  standard  with  deep  religious  feeling  .         .         .         .16 

The  permanence  of  religion  guaranteed  by  its  universal  dif- 
fusion   19 

The  vital  thing  is  not  the  form  in  which  the  religious  instinct 
has  expressed  itself,  but  the  fact  that  the  instinct  exists      .       21 

The  existence  and  survival  of  the  spiritual  instinct  guarantees 
the  existence  of  a  spiritual  environment  which  responds  to  it      22 

Hence  the  non-religious  man  is  incompletely  human      ,        .      27 


Contents 


CHAPTER    II 

HAS   THEOLOGY   HAD   ITS   DAY  ? 


rAGn 


The  present  impatience  with  theology  not  wholly  unjustified 
though  greatly  exaggerated,  and  largely  due  to  the  mental 
demoralisation  of  our  time  and  failure  to  appreciate  the 
gravity  of  the  issues  involved 28 

Since  the  universe  is  mysterious  no  adequate  explanation  can 
be  simple 31 

Since  we  cannot  be  content  without  a  theory  of  our  experience, 
the  permanence  of  religion  involves  the  permanence  of 
theology 33 

Belief  without  thought  is  superstition 35 

Constructive  theology  has  still  a  vast  task  before  it        .         -37 

While  we  reverence  the  past  we  must  avoid  its  defects,  and 
respond  to  the  demand  our  own  age  makes  upon  us     .         -37 

Christian  morality  cannot  permanently  survive  Christian 
theology      . 39 


CHAPTER    III 

WHY  I   CANNOT   BE   A   MATERIALIST 

The  material  universe  forces  itself  on  our  unremitting  attention  43 
The  triumphs  of  physical  science  have  also  made  materialism 

very  attractive 44 

Yet  it  does  not  prove  permanently  satisfactory       ...  45 

The  Seven  Riddles  of  the  Universe 45 

What  are  Matter  and  Force  ? 46 

Materialism  and  the  conservation  of  energy  ....  47 

From  matter  to  thought — no  road 49 

Materialism   cannot  account   for  consciousneM  or  personal 

identity 49 

We  know  matter  only  through  mind 5' 

If  the  universe  is  a  dream  there  must  be  a  mind  to  dream  it    .  5  a 

Materialism  leaves  no  room  for  religion  or  morality        .        .  53 


Contents  xi 


CHAPTER    IV 

IS   THERE    A   GOD  ? 

PAGB 

The  universality  of  religion  implies  a  spiritual  universe  with 

which  man  is  in  relation 55 

If  man  is  rational  his  history  cannot  rest  on  the  irrational      ,  56 

The  proofs  of  the  existence  of  God 57 

The  argument  from  design 58 

Darwinism  and  design 63 

The  veto  of  agnob'ticism 68 

We  cannot  infer  from  our  own  experience  that  personality 

necessarily  implies  limitation .69 

The  Power  which  makes  for  righteousness      ....  73 

The  witness  of  conscience 75 

The  existence  of  sin,  death,  and  pain  no  disproof  of  Theism    .  76 


CHAPTER    V 

WHICH   IS   THE   BEST   RELIGION  ? 

Man  must  have  a  religion,  but  which  ? 80 

Tests  which  a  religion  must  satisfy 81 

Failure    of   non-Christian    religions,     including    Islam    and 

Buddhism 82 

Christianity  secures  fellowship  with  God  ...  83 
It  has  an  adequate  conception  of  sin,  but  fights  with  the 

assurance  of  victory 84 

Its  moral  ideal  is  incarnate  in  a  Person 84 

It  works  for  progress  and  the  elevation  of  mankind  .  .  85 
This  is  not  disproved  by  the  frequent  antagonism  to  progress 

often  exhibited  by  Christians %7 

The  Christian  estimate  of  man's  worth  .....  88 


CHAPTER    VI 

THB  TRINITY   IN   UNITY 

Fundamental  character  of  the  doctrine  .         .        »        •        .      90 
It  was  formulated  less  in  a  speculative  interest  than  to  guard 
the  great  facts  of  redemption 91 


xH  Contents 


rAG« 


The  danger  of  polytheism  accounts  for  its  absence  from  the 
Old    Testament,    which    nevertheless    exhibits    movement 

towards  it 9a 

The  Christian  facts  created  the  doctrine         ....  94 
The  problem  :    How  to  reconcile  the  divinity  of  Christ  with 

the  unity  of  God 9S 

Sabellianism,  Ancient  and  Modem 95 

The  Arian  controversy 96 

The  Trinity  not  merely  a  Trinity  of  revelation         •         •         •  97 
The  relative  simplicity  of  human  nature  is  no  measure  for  the 

complexity  of  the  Divine 98 

All  human  language  is  inadequate  to  express  the  truth  about 

God 9« 

The  doctrine  helps  to  secure  the  personaUty  of  God         .         .100 
Moral  relations  have  existed  eternally  in  God         .         .         .101 

Love  impUes  the  lover  and  the  loved 10 1 

God  is  not  the  lonely  God      .        .        .        .        t        .        •  loi 


CHAPTER    VII 

SIN 

The  surprise  of  evil  in  a  universe  created  by  God  .  •  .  104 
No  full  solution  possible,  but  only  helpful  suggestions  .  .104 
The  sense  of  sin  is  the  creation  of  religion,  and  pre-eminently 

of  Christianity 105 

Sin  in  itself  is  radically  evil,  but  we  must  not  exaggerate  the 

range  of  its  dominion 106 

The  pantheistic  denial  that  sin  really  exists  .         .         .107 

No  freedom,  no  sin 108 

We  are  conscious  of  our  freedom,  and  remorse  is  inexplicable 

if  we  have  no  freedom  of  choice 109 

Does   sin   contribute   to   the   aesthetic   completeness   of   the 

universe  ? no 

Sin  is  not  merely  negative  nor  disguised  good  .  .  .  1 10 
Limitation  of  being  is  not  moral  imperfection         .        .         .     iia 

The  seat  of  sin  is  not  in  the  body 112 

Paul  does  not  mean  the  body  when  he  speaks  of  the  sinful 

flesh 113 

Sin  emerges  when  self-love  clashes  with  God's  will .        •        •114 


Contents  x\\\ 


PACB 


Theologians   have   traced   man's   universal   sinfulness   to   a 

catastrophe 115 

The  popular  doctrine  of  the  Fall  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 

story  of  Eden 116 

Has   modem   knowledge  destroyed  the  foundations  of  the 

Pauline  theology? 117 

Paul's   doctrine   of   Adam   essentially   independent   of   the 

historicity  of  Genesis 1 18 

Adam  and  Christ — a  parallel  and  a  contrast  .  .  .  .  ti8 
The  view  that  the  death  of  the  individual  is  due  to  personal  sin 

does  not  harmonise  with  experience,  with  the  terms  of  the 

passage,  with  the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ,  with 

Paul's  language  elsewhere  and  in  the  immediate  context, 

or  with  the  passage  as  a  whole 119 

The  death  of  all  due  to  Adam's  sin,  because  the  sin  of  Adam 

is  the  sin  of  all 121 

This  does  not  mean  that  all  men  were  actually  in  Adam  and 

shared  in  his  act 121 

Adam  is  our  representative,  since  his  character  is  the  same  as 

our  own 122 

Paul  emphasises  the  low  level  of  Adam's  moral  condition  .  122 
The  flesh  in  Adam,  as  in  ourselves,  was  sinful  flesh  .  .  .123 
The  sin  latent  in  the  flesh  springs  to  life  at  the  touch  of  the    rs, 

law,  and  thus  man's  sinful  nature  is  disclosed  ,  .  .  i2J\ 
Paul's  interest  in  Adam  not  historical  .....  125 
If  man's  nature  was  originally  sinless,  how  can  we  account  for 

the  first  sin  ? f2& 

Can  the  act  of  an  individual  have  transformed  the  character 

of  the  human  race  ? 127 

The  influence  of  example  inadequate  to  explain  universal 

sinfulness 127 

The  common  doctrine  of  original  sin   tenches  that  Adam 

transmitted  to  his  descendants  a  damaged  moral  nature  .  128 
Heredity  is  thought  to  guarantee  the  possibility  and  define 

the  process 129 

But  can  acquired  characteristics  be  transmitted  ?  .  .  .130 
If  transmission  is  possible,  it  affects  physical  qualities  alone, 

since  the  spirit  is  not  propagated  with  the  body  .  .  •  1 3 1 
The  need  of  redemption  due  to  the  fact  of  sin,  not  to  the 

mode  of  its  origin 132 

The  difficulty  of  the  view  that  the  first  man  was  sinful  finds 

its  parallel  in  the  case  of  the  child 132 


xlv  Contents 

PAGV 

The  theory  of  man's  animal  descent  greatly  relieves  the  diflft- 

culty .133 

He  brings  up  from  his  animal  antecedents  the  raw  material 
of  sin,  which  is  turned  into  actuality  by  the  emergence  of  the 

moral  sense I33 

The  law's  check  on  sin  drives  man  to  rebellion  .  .  -134 
Sin  to  some  degree  the  survival  of  lower  elements  into  a 

higher  order i35 

But  it  reaches  to  man's  whole  nature,  and  so  is  not  merely  an 

anachronism I35 

The  explanation  offered  probably  inadequate,  but  less  so  than 

might  appear  at  first  sight 136 

It  makes  God's  action  less  open  to  criticism  .  .  .  .136 
If  God  creates  free  spirits  He  must  take  the  risk  of  sin  .  .  137 
The  paradox  of  sin  inevitable  yet  blameworthy      •        •        .138 


CHAPTER    VIII 

DOES   IT    MATTER    IF   THE   GOSPEL   HISTORY   IS    UNTRUB  ? 

The  connexion  of  Christianity  with  history  exposes  it  to  the 
ordeal  of  criticism  with  all  its  disastrous  possibilities   .         .139 

Yet  it  would  be  fatal  to  rescue  the  ideas  by  surrendering  the 
facts    ...........     143 

For  Christianity  without  its  facts  has  ceased  to  be  Christianity, 
though  much  that  is  precious  would  be  left         .         ,         .143 

But  while  we  buy  off  the  critic  by  surrendering  our  facts,  the 
philosopher  pursues  us  to  cloudland  to  attack  our  ideas, 
which  have  now  lost  their  support  in  the  facts  that  guar- 
anteed their  truth 14^ 

We  ought  not  to  depreciate  the  historical  Jesus  out  of  rever- 
ence for  the  living  Cliiist,  or  stake  the  truth  of  Christianity 
on  the  witness  of  the  religious  consciousness      •        «        .146 


CHAPTER    IX 

CAN   WE  TRUST   THE   GOSPEL  PORTRAIT  OF  JESUS  t 

Jesus  is  not  the  mere  Founder  of  Christianity,  but  its  most 

vital  element 1^3 

Did  Jesus  ever  live  ?     All  the  experts  say  "  Yes  " .        .        .     149 


Contents  xv 


PACK 


All  first-rate  critics  admit  that  several  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 
are  authentic,  and  in  this  respect  criticism  is  becoming 
more  and  more  conservative 150 

It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  Mark  is  the  earliest  of  our 
Gospels,  and  has  been  used  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  which 
probably  also  employed  a  second  source     .         .         .         .151 

The  several  sources  unite  in  the  presentation  of  the  character 
of  Jesus  which  cannot  have  been  an  unconscious  creation  .     153 

The  central  figure  of  the  Gospels  cannot  have  been  invented ; 
it  is  too  natural,  and  the  feat  of  invention  too  difficult         .     153 

An  invented  character  would  have  embodied  the  inventor's 
limited  ideals,  but  Jesus  is  free  from  limitations  of  race 
and  age 154 

The  story  contains  several  things  which  no  Christian  could 
have  invented 155 

The  story  of  a  slain  Messiah  might  just  conceivably  have 
been  invented  by  Jews,  though  this  is  most  improbable      .     156 

But  no  Jew  could  have  invented  the  story  of  a  crucified 
Messiah 157 


CHAPTER    X 

THE   MIRACLBS   OF   JESUS 

While  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  still  more  the  Gospels,  tell 
us  much  about  Jesus,  the  miraculous  element  in  the  story 
seems  to  many  to  discredit  it 159 

We  need  not  shrink  from  giving  miracles  a  place  in  our  apolo- 
getic     160 

Narratives  of  healing  are  often  accepted  as  true  by  those  who 
disbelieve  in  miracles 161 

The  evidence  for  miracles  ought  to  be  of  exceptional  strength     162 

While  "the  laws  of  Nature"  are  only  inferences  from  past 
experience,  we  do  not  imagine  that  Nature  will  begin  to  act 
on  entirely  new  principles 163 

Miracle  seems  to  imply  a  collapse  of  God's  ordinary  govern- 
ment, but  we  must  not  tie  His  energy  to  the  familiar  ruts 
or  limit  the  freedom  of  His  action 165 

Suggestions  towards  removing  our  initial  prejudices       .         .166 

The  miraculous  and  non -miraculous  elements  in  the  Gospels 
are  intimately  c(»inected    .«.•••.     169 

b 


xvi  Contents 


PAGS 


The  sobriety  and  ethical  character  of  the  miracles  in  the 
Canonical  Gospels  in  contrast  to  those  in  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels 169 

The  harmonious  combination  of  the  normal  and  super-normal 
not  due  to  literary  skill  but  to  truthful  narration        .        .171 

The  contemporaries  of  Jesus  were  less  credulous  than  is  some- 
times alleged 171 

The  mythical  theory  of  Strauss  rested  on  no  adequate  literary 
criticism,  disregarded  the  limits  of  time,  and  has  broken 
down  at  the  most  crucial  points 172 

The  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  an  ethical  miracle,  and  powers 
may  be  committed  to  the  sinless  which  it  would  be  unsafe  for 
the  sinful  to  possess 174 

The  miracles  are  often  signs  of  spiritual  truth        .         .         .175 

Since  religion  is  the  greatest  thing  in  human  life,  Jesus  is  the 
supreme  figure  of  history,  so  that  miracles  in  His  career  are 
not  surprising 175 


CHAPTER    XI 

THE  SUPERNATURAL  BIRTH   OP  JESUS 


The  divinity  of  Christ  is  independent  of  His  supernatural 
birth 

Since  Mary  was  not  sinless,  the  absence  of  human  paternity 
does  not  explain  the  sinlessness  of  Christ    . 

The  story  of  His  birth  is  a  matter  for  impartial  investigation 

Mark  is  silent  on  the  miraculous  birth,  and  his  narrative  is  diflS 
cult  to  harmonise  with  it 

The  silence  of  Paul  and  other  New  Testament  writers     . 

The  remarkable  differences  between  the  narratives  of  Matthew 
and  of  Luke 

Similar  stories  of  divine  parentage  among  the  heathen   . 

The  difficulties  are  real,  but  often  exaggerated 

The  silence  of  Mark  is  unimportant         .... 

Paul's  Epistles  were  written  to  Churches  already  instructed 
in  the  faith,  yet  even  if  he  knew  the  story  he  would  naturally 
be  reticent  to  avoid  misconstruction,  especially  as  it  would 
not  affect  his  Christology 183 

The  silence  of  John  due  neither  to  ignorsuice  nor  rejection      ,     184 

But  is  John  silent  ?...•»•,,     184 


177 

177 

178 

179 
179 

180 
182 
182 
182 


Contents 


xvH 


The  stories  of  Matthew  and  Luke  difficult  to  reconcile  ;  but 
Matthew  gives  story  from  Joseph's,  Luke  from  Mary's 
point  of  view 

Luke's  opportunities  for  investigation  .... 

He  agrees  with  Matthew  in  the  central  facts  . 

Why  should  Luke  place  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  ?    . 

Heathen  influence  did  not  create  the  story    . 

Did  the  Jews  expect  the  Messiah  to  be  born  of  a  virgin  ? 

The  Septuagint  reference  to  Immanuel's  birth  from  a  virgin 
did  not  create  the  story 

Our  conclusion  affected  by  our  general  view  of  Jesus 

The  story  was  exposed  to  misconstruction,  and  there  was  no 
theological  necessity  for  its  invention 

The  character  of  the  stories  a  strong  evidence  of  their  truth 


185 
186 
187 
187 
188 
188 

189 
190 

190 
191 


CHAPTER    XII 


THE   RESURRECTION    OF   JESUS 

The  evidence  is  early  and  copious,  but  difficult  to  harmonise  .     192 

The  crash  of  the  hopes  entertained  by  the  disciples        .         .193 

The  crucifixion  seemed  to  negative  the  Messianic  claims  of 
Jesus  and  brand  Him  with  the  curse  of  God       .         .         .194 

The  disciples  continued  to  regard  Him  as  the  Messiah  in  spite 
of  His  accursed  death  because  they  were  assured  of  His 
resurrection 195 

An  investigation  into  the  truths  of  the  belief  naturally  begins 
with  the  testimony  of  Paul,  which  is  all  the  more  important 
that  he  was  familiar  with  both  sides  of  the  case,  and  in 
spite  of  very  strong  reasons  to  the  contrary  accepted  the 
Christian  view 197 

The  list  of  the  appearances  in  1  Corinthians  is  invaluable,  but 
its  limitations  must  be  steadily  borne  in  mind      .        .         .199 

The  vision  theory  and  the  objections  to  it      .        .        .         .     200 

Paul  does  not  mention  the  open  grave  in  the  summary  list  of 
appearances,  but  he  implies  it  in  his  mention  of  the  burial  of 
Jesus 202 

The  reference  to  the  third  day  cannot  fairly  be  eliminated 
from  Paul's  evidence  . 203 

The  number  of  those  who  saw  the  appearances  and  the  brevity 
of  time  over  which  they  were  spread  makes  the  theory  of 
illusion  very  improbable 204 


xviii  Contents 

tKGM. 

The  dating  of  the  Resurrection  on  the  third  day  fixes  the 
appearances  at  Jerusalem,  and  thus  attests  the  story  of  the 
empty  grave ^^5 

The  theory  that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  rests  upon  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  apostles'  language        .         .         .206 

The  theory  that  there  were  real  but  non-physical  appearances     207 


CHAPTER    XIII 

THE   DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST 

Jesus  Himself  the  vital  element  in  the  Gospel  .  .  .  209 
He  is  the  main  evidence  for  His  divinity  .  .  .  .210 
God  cannot  be  immoral,  hence  Jesus  must  be  sinless  if  He  is 

Divine 211 

But  can  we  admit  such  an  exception  or  know  a  character  which 

belongs  to  a  long-vanished  past  ? 211 

He  makes  on  the  most  competent  judges  an  impression  of 

moral  perfection 212 

The  evangelists  could  not  have  created  such  a  character  .  212 
The  early  Christians  believed  in  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  .  213 
The  impression  the  apostles  formed  of  Jesus  testifies  to  the 

estimate  He  placed  upon  Himself 2i4 

The  decisive  testimony  is  given  by  the  consciousness  of  Jesus     216 
No  one  has  had  a  moral  standard  so  exacting,  yet  He  betrays 
no  sense  of  sin  or  need  of  pardon.     He  claims  to  be  the 
Judge  of  mankind,  and  asserts  His  right  to  forgive  sin         .     216 
The  lines  along  which  the  proof  of  His  divinity  must  be  con- 
ducted   218 

The  preparation  for  Christ 218 

The  startling  success  of  the  Gospel  in  spite  of  enormous  dis- 
advantages   220 

The  reply  that  Christianity  has  worked  for  evil  no  disproof, 
for  Jesus  cannot  be  blamed  for  the  unfaithfulness  of  His 
followers,  and  much  is  due  to  the  survival  of  paganism  in 

the  Church 223 

The  philanthropic  and  redemptive  achievements  of  the  Gospel  225 
Jesus  is  the  supreme  Teacher  of  religion  .  .  .  ,225 
The  early  Christians  believed  Him  to  be  Divine  .  .  .227 
The  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  writers  ....     228 


Contents  x\x 

PAGK 

Paul  did  not  create  the  doctrine    .         .         .        .        .         .230 

The  claim  made  for  Himself  by  Jesus  expressly  and  by  im- 
plication        234 

He  is  greater  than  the  angels  or  the  prophets,  is  Judge  and 
Lord  of  all,  and  demands  the  first  place      .         .         .         -234 

His  unique  relation  to  God,  His  lofty  authority.  His  freedom 
from  ordinary  limitations,  His  certainty  of  the  future        .     236 

All  the  conditions  seemed  to  be  hostile  to  His  success — His 
land.  His  race.  His  social  position.  His  lack  of  theological  or 
philosophical  training,  the  novelty  of  the  Gospel,  the  brevity 
of  His  career,  the  folly  of  the  Cross 238 

The  secret  of  His  success  lay  in  Himself         ....     244 

Independent  lines  of  argument  converge  to  prove  His  divinity    244 


CHAPTER    XIV 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  INCARNATION 

The  fact  of  the  Incarnation  gains  larger  significance  in  the 

light  of  our  modern  knowledge  of  the  universe      .         .         .  246 

The  message  of  the  Incarnation 247 

The  conditions  of  the  problem 247 

The  mystery  of  human  personality 248 

The  subconscious  self 248 

The  combination  of  two  imperfectly  known  factors  creates 

an  insoluble  problem 249 

We  must  heartily  recognise  the  limitations  imposed  by  the 

Incarnation 250 

The  appeal  to  Jesus  on  questions  of  Biblical  criticism    .         .  250 

The  Kenotic  theories 251 

Jesus  confesses  and  implies  His  ignorance  .  .  .  .252 
The  misery  of  the  world  must  have  forced  on  Jesus  the 

temptation  to  doubt  God's  love 253 

This  temptation  would  have  been  impossible  had  He  been 

omniscient 254 

Surrender  of  omniscience  enhances  the  greatness  of  Christ      .  255 

But  docs  it  impair  His  divinity  ? 256 

No.     For  the  essence  of  divinity  is  love,  which  finds  its  most 

perfect  expression  in  sacrifice 257 


XX  Contents 

CHAPTER    XV 

THE    WORK   OF   CHRIST 

paGB 

True  reverence  seeks  to  understand  the  work  of  Christ  .         .259 
While  a  large  element  of  mystery  must  be  fully  recognised  we 
ought  not  to  despair  of  gaining  some  insight  into  the  prin- 
ciples expressed  in  it 260 

The  fact  of  the  Atonement  is  rejected  by  some  because  they 
cannot  accept  a  theory  they  identify  with  it,  by  others 
because  it  conflicts  with  their  presuppositions     .         .         .261 
The  lines  on  which  an  adequate  theory  may  be  ultimately 

constructed 263 

Theories  of  the  Atonement  have  been  often  moulded  by  con- 
temporary customs  and  ideals,  which  may  very  unworthily 
represent  the  divine  principles  of  action      ....     265 
The  Bible  is  not  a  technical  treatise  on  theology,  and  its  lan- 
guage must  not  be  unduly  pressed 266 

Redemption  does  not  exhaust  the  work  of  Christ  .  .  .  267 
The  death  of  Christ  does  not  exhaust  His  redeeming  work  .  268 
The  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  depends  on  the  doctrine  of  God  269 
We  must,  in  loyalty  to  Christ,  make  the  Fatherhood  of  God 

fundamental 269 

The  Atonement  springs  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  holy  love  270 
The  work  of  salvation  begins  by  creating  a  consciousness  of  sin 

in  its  true  character 270 

This  is  a  difl&cult  task,  for  sin  blunts  the  moral  perceptions, 
but  it  is  achieved  by  bringing  home  a  perception  of  the 

havoc  wrought  by  it 271 

Penitence  cannot  suffice  because  an  adequate  repentance  is 

wholly  beyond  us 272 

We  must  not  take  forgiveness  for  granted  too  easily  .  .  273 
God  must  guard  His  forgiveness  against  misconstruction  and 

reveal  His  inflexible  righteousness  and  hatred  of  sin  .  -^73 
The  substitutionary  theory  fails  to  do  justice  to  Christ's  work  275 
It  is  absent  from  Scripture.     Moreover,  penalty  cannot  be 

transferred  .        . 275 

Christ  did  not  receive  the  full  penalty  of  sin,  and  man  has  still 

to  endure  many  of  sin's  consequences  ....  276 
If  Christ  bore  all  the  penalty,  none  remains  for  the  sinner  to 

bear 276 

Christ's  death  was  a  racial  act      ......     278 

Christ's  identification  of  Himself  with  man    ....     278 


Contents  xxi 


PACB 


He  must  bear  our  burden,  familiarise  Himself  with  our  sin, 

in  spite  of  the  pain,  shame,  and  horror  with  which  it  filled 

Him 278 

He  had  also  to  know  the  extreme  consequences  of  sin  .  .279 
His  supreme  agony  was  the  bewildering  sense  of  separation 

from  God 280 

Christ  accepts  God's  judgment  on  sin,  and  the  race  accepts  it 

in  Him 280 

Christ's  relation  to  the  race  is  not  one  of  representation,  but 

of  identification 281 

Vicarious  suffering  a  fact  of  common  experience,  but  it  creates 

no  store  of  transferable  merit 282 

But  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  avail  for  the  race  with  which  He  is 

identified 282 

He  makes  all  the  suffering  of  the  race  His  own         .        .        .283 

Christ's  death  was  a  death  to  sin 283 

His  resurrection  inaugurates  the  new  life  unto  God        «        .    284 


CHAPTER    XVI 

PERSONAL  SALVATION 

What  Christ  did  for  the  race  .                 286 

Paul's  fundamental  thought  that  of  union  with  Christ  .         .  286 
We  must  not  water  this  down  to  a  moral  union,  since  this  is 

quite  insufficient  for  the  task 287 

Those  who  need  the  moral  union  most  are  least  able  to  attain  it  287 
Nothing  short  of  a  mystical  union  satisfies  the  language  of  Paul  288 
The  difficulty  of  the  thought  ought  not  to  tempt  us  to  re- 
ject it 289 

The  Christian,  since  he  is  one  with  Christ,  participates  in  His 

experiences 289 

He  shares  His  suffering,  His  death,  His  risen  life    ,        .        .  290 

He  shares  Christ's  status  before  God 290 

But  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Justification  immoral  ?   .         .        .291 
No.     For  it  is  the  new  creature  in  Christ,  not  the  old  self, 
that  is  declared  righteous        .        .         .  .        .        .291 

The  statement  that  God  justifies  the  ungodly  is  a  popular, 

not  a  scientific  expression 292 

Justification  is  by  faith,  since  union  with  Christ  is  by  faith    .  292 

Faith  is  not  mere  intellectual  assent  to  facts  or  theori«6  .        .  29s 


xxll  Contents 

It  implies  a  tease  of  (uilt  and  the  impossibility  of  self-salva- 
tion       293 

Renouncing  all  other  grounds  of  salvation,  the  sinner  casts 

himself  upon  Christ 293 

Faith  is  the  movement  of  the  whole  personaUty  towards  Godv  -294^ 

Religion  cannot  be  other  than  emotional        ....  394 

But  emotion  must  not  be  narrowly  interpreted  .  .  .  294 
Union  with  Christ  creates  a  new  character  .  .  .  .295 
How  can  we  harmonise  this  glowing  picture  of  the  Christian 

life  with  our  disenchanting  experience  ?      .         .         .         .  296 
Paul's  exposition  displays  the  principles  at  work  in  their 

absolute  form 296 

But  he  knew  the  weakness  of  faith  and  the  obstinacy  of  the 

flesh 297 

The  Christian  shares  Christ's  blessed  immortality  ,        .        .  297 


CHRISTIANITY 

ITS  NATURE  AND  ITS  TRUTH 

CHAPTER   I 
WHAT   IS    RELIGION? 

TO  the  question,  "  What  is  Rehgion  ?  "  many 
answers  are  given.  One  will  say  that  religion 
consists  in  going  to  church  and  participating  in  cer- 
tain acts  of  worship.  Another  will  contend  that 
reUgion  is  rather  an  intellectual  attitude  towards  the 
universe,  and  consists  essentially  in  what  a  man  be- 
lieves. While  the  former  identifies  religion  with  the 
cultus  or  worship,  the  latter  identifies  it  with  the  creed. 
A  third,  however,  will  insist  that  the  main  thing  in 
religion  is  conduct.  Whether  a  man  is  religious  or  not 
depends  on  whether  he  is  upright  or  not.  Now,  it  is 
true  that  religion  is  closely  associated  with  all  of  these, 
with  cultus,  creed,  and  conduct.  The  first  two  are  its 
direct  creation,  and  the  latter  has  been  largely  influ- 
enced by  it.  Yet  religion  in  its  innermost  nature  is 
not  any  of  these  things  at  all. 

Without  attempting  a  scientific  definition,  I  may 
sufficiently  describe  my  view  by  saying  that  religion  is 


»>  ^^Qkfhiianity :  iU  -Naturt  and  its  Truth 

fellowship  with  the  Unseen.  Man*s  nature  bears  upon 
it  the  hall-mark  of  heaven.  Woven  into  its  very 
texture  we  discover  a  faculty  for  which  the  material 
universe  does  not  prepare  us.  Our  physical  senses  find 
their  exercise  and  satisfaction  in  the  physical  world, 
to  which  they  are  exquisitely  adjusted.  But  man 
has  always  manifested  the  impulse  to  pass  behind  the 
veil  of  the  visible  and  penetrate  into  the  unseen,  and 
this  tendency  demonstrates  to  us  the  reality  of  the 
invisible  order.  The  things  of  time  press  in  upon  us 
through  every  channel  of  the  senses ;  we  are  con- 
scious of  them  every  moment  in  joy  or  pain,  in  desire 
or  gratification,  in  sight  and  sound,  in  labour  or  rest. 
We  cannot  escape  from  them,  their  innumerable  waves 
beat  on  the  shore  of  consciousness  at  every  point. 
Were  it  not  that  we  train  ourselves  to  select  from  our 
impressions  those  which  appeal  to  our  interest,  and  to 
ignore  the  rest,  the  strongest  brain  would  quickly  be 
distracted  and  lose  all  power  of  control.  But  as  it  is, 
the  outward  world  clamours  at  every  gate  of  our 
physical  being,  forces  itself  on  our  notice,  and  demands 
our  constant  attention.  Yet  what  hfts  us  above  the 
world  is  that  we  do  not  suffer  ourselves  to  be  captured 
and  absorbed  by  it.  The  prison  walls  may  close  about 
us,  but  our  prison  is  open  to  the  sky.  Thither  our 
spirits  aspire  for  their  contentment,  and  in  its  pos- 
session our  deepest  happiness  is  to  be  won.  Bom 
into  a  tangible  world,  and  linked  intimately  to  it  by 
the  structure  of  our  being,  we  yet  bear  within  us  the 


Wkat  is  Religion  f  3 

seed  of  the  Divine.  If  on  the  one  side  man  is  the 
fellow  of  the  beast,  on  the  other  he  is  sprung  from 
the  race  of  flame.  Driven  out  of  himself  and  beyond 
the  world,  he  seeks  his  rest  in  communion  \vith  the 
Unseen.  True  to  the  deepest  impulses  of  his  being, 
he  creates  religion. 

Now  the  experience  he  thus  achieves  is  in  the  heart 
of  it  emotional.  However  justly  we  may  criticise 
Schleiermacher's  famous  description  of  rehgion  as  feel- 
ing, and  especially  as  a  feehng  of  dependence,  I  do 
not  doubt  that  he  put  his  finger  on  the  right  place 
when  he  found  in  feeling  the  essence  of  rehgion. 
Other  elements  enter  it  of  necessity,  but  here  we  are 
at  the  centre.  It  is  the  meeting  of  spirit  and  spirit, 
the  flush  of  happiness,  the  thrill  of  satisfaction,  the 
sense  of  peace,  the  glad  reahsation  that  now  at  last 
a  hunger,  keener  than  hunger,  has  been  appeased  by 
the  heavenly  bread.  God  and  the  soul  have  met,  and 
in  the  shock  of  that  meeting  there  has  come  to  the 
soul  a  wholly  new  emotion.  There  are  things  for 
which  we  pine,  and  no  substitute  wiU  suffice.  Per- 
haps the  heart  aches  for  a  friend,  and  no  other  friend 
will  assuage  the  bitter  longing  for  the  absent.  Or  it 
may  think  with  a  great  desire  of  its  old  home  and  its 
native  land,  and  no  other  scene  can  steal  the  yearn- 
ing from  it.  So  not  even  our  dearest  can  meet  the 
spirit  at  the  depth  where  God  meets  it,  and  fill  it 
with  the  sweet  sense  of  contentment  and  repose.  And 
the  yearning  of  the  spirit  is  a  home-sickness  for  God. 


4      Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Religion  is  that  blessed  cxperienot  in  which  man 
comes  home  to  God,  and  with  a  happy  smile  sinks 
to  rest  in  His  embrace.  True,  the  experience  varies 
indefinitely  in  different  people,  since  temperament, 
spiritual  privilege,  culture  are  at  such  different  levels. 
In  some  it  may  express  itself  in  an  almost  delirious 
rapture  or  wild  orgiastic  enthusiasm,  while  others  may 
be  awed  into  a  great  stillness,  with  their  hearts  full 
of  a  joy  too  deep  for  words  or  tears.  And  between 
extremes  of  this  kind  lie  other  ranges  of  feeling,  but 
in  all  cases  where  religion  does  its  work  emotion  must 
be  the  very  core  of  the  experience. 

We  may  reverently  believe  that  the  crying  out  of 
heart  and  flesh  for  the  Uving  God  can  never  have  been 
unheeded  by  Him,  who  did  not  leave  Himself  with- 
out a  witness  in  the  human  soul.  Even  in  the  most 
degraded  races,  where  rehgion  seems  all  of  a  piece 
with  the  disgusting  savagery  of  their  general  Hfe,  we 
find  a  passion  and  an  intensity  which  point  to  the 
deeply-felt  desire,  and  to  the  experience  of  some 
response.  If  Christians  put  into  their  religion  as 
much  fervour  as  many  of  these  lower  races  put  into 
theirs,  we  should  soon  see  the  temperature  of  our 
Churches  rising  towards  boihng  point.  Naturally  the 
emotion  generated  is  deeply  contaminated  with  baser 
passions.  Only  the  eye  of  love  could  detect  in  these 
hideous  surroundings  the  germ  of  a  purer  faith.  The 
unrestrained  licence,  the  cold-blooded  cruelty,  the 
fantastic  ceremonies,  would  blind  us  to  the  inmost 


Wkat  is  Religion?  5 

meaning,  were  we  not  ready  to  penetrate  to  it  by 
imagination  and  loving  sympathy.  And  an  unpreju- 
diced observer  would  be  struck  with  the  remarkable 
parallels  he  could  find  in  the  practices  and  beliefs  of 
some  Christian  Churches. 

It  is  sometimes  urged  as  a  reproach  to  the  mission 
preacher  that  he  works  on  the  feelings  of  his  audience. 
It  is  true,  and  it  ought  to  be  true.  The  revivaUst 
who  fails  to  do  it  has  not  learned  the  elements  of  his 
work.  He  cannot,  indeed,  now  appeal  to  the  sense 
of  terror  as  his  predecessor  could.  The  almost  uni- 
versal disbelief  among  educated  Protestants  in  a 
material  hell-fire  has  certainly  weakened  the  urgency 
of  appeal.  But  probably  the  chief  reason  why  the 
missioner  has  largely  abandoned  the  appeal  to  terror 
is  that  he  finds  that  it  meets  with  very  Httle  response. 
In  the  widespread  breakdo^vn  of  belief  with  which  we 
are  at  present  confronted,  very  many  have  practically 
ceased  to  believe  that,  even  if  there  should  be  a  future 
life,  they  have  anything  to  dread  in  it.  This  has  not 
been  clear  gain ;  for  the  solemn  truth  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  retribution,  and  that  as  a  man  sows 
he  must  reap,  cannot  slip  from  the  popular  conscious- 
ness without  weakening  the  tension  of  the  ethical 
standard.  But  neither  has  it  been  all  loss,  for,  at  least, 
it  is  better  to  win  men  by  love ;  and  the  appalling 
confidence  with  which  men  used  to  arrogate  to  them- 
selves the  right  of  asserting  the  destiny  of  their  fellowB 
shocks  me  proloimdly  as  I  Icnok  back  uptm  it.         -  ^ 


6      Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

But  while  terror  no  longer  holds  its  former  place, 
it  is  quite  true  that  emotionalism  remains  a  potent 
weapon  in  the  missioner's  armoury.  There  could  be 
nothing  more  absurd  than  the  depreciation  to  which 
emotion  is  subjected,  usually  by  cold-blooded  pedants 
who  aim  to  pass  for  superior  persons.  The  emotional 
life  lies  at  the  very  centre  of  our  being,  and  it  is  the 
one  thing  that  must  be  touched  and  captured  if  the 
man  is  to  be  fundamentally  transformed.  We  must, 
of  course,  discriminate.  The  emotion  of  which  I  speak 
is  no  shallow  sentiment  ruffling  the  mere  surface  of 
our  life.  It  is  rather  an  experience  in  which  the  foun- 
tains of  the  great  deep  are  broken  up.  No  doubt 
emotion  may  be  a  dangerous  thing  to  play  with,  and 
religious  emotion  most  of  all.  Nevertheless  the  risk 
must  be  taken  in  many  cases  in  order  that  a  man 
may  be,  to  use  the  old-fashioned  expression,  soundly 
converted  at  all.  And  this  explains  why  it  is  that 
even  the  wildest  excitement  has  often  co-operated  in 
achieving  sterling  results.  Some  natures  cannot  fuse 
except  at  a  very  high  temperature ;  and  while  many 
of  us  prefer  that  still  intensity  of  feeling  in  which  we 
think  that  the  spiritual  change  is  best  achieved,  we 
ought  to  be  wiUing  to  become  all  things  to  all  men  if 
thereby  we  may  save  some.  And  even  after  the  in- 
tellect has  accepted  the  Gospel,  and  the  will  has  bowed 
in  subjection  to  it,  there  needs  to  be  that  passionate 
self-abandonment  in  which,  with  a  glad  thrill  and 
shock  of  content,  Divine  and  human  blend,  and  the 


What  is  Religion  f  7 

troubled  spirit  finds  rest.  Nothing  can  take  the  place 
of  feeling,  for  without  it  the  religious  instinct  misses 
its  supreme  satisfaction.  It  is  not  in  thought,  but  in 
feeling,  that  we  come  nearest  to  God,  whose  name  is 
Love.  It  is,  then,  no  legitimate  reproach  to  a  mis- 
sioner  that  his  preaching  is  emotional.  Only  we  must 
beware  that  emotion  does  not  degenerate  into  sensa- 
tionalism or  mawkish  sentiment alism. 

It  is  not  the  precise  form  which  the  experience  takes 
that  matters.  Even  in  those  Churches  which  have 
cultivated  a  warm  type  of  spirituahty,  and  sedulously 
nourished  the  emotional  side  of  religion,  the  type  of 
manifestation  changes  in  course  of  time.  But  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  they  are  losing  their  central 
heat.  It  is,  perhaps,  more  likely  that  the  fire  glows 
even  more  hotly  because  its  heat  is  not  flung  off  in 
such  a  shower  of  sparks.  But  whether  this  be  so  or 
not,  it  is  our  primary  duty  to  guard  the  sacred  fire. 
We  need  for  each  individual  an  original  spiritual  ex- 
perience, the  electric  thrill  of  definite  contact  with 
God.  In  relgion  the  second-hand  is  intolerable,  yet 
how  much  rehgious  Ufe  is  the  echo  of  an  echo.  And 
when  we  have  caught  the  flame  direct  from  God,  with 
what  jealous  care  we  need  to  keep  it  burning !  To 
dwell  in  the  secret  place  of  the  Most  High  is  the  supreme 
method  of  the  spiritual  life.  There  we  are  warmed  and 
fed,  and  there  religion  fulfils  in  us  its  perfect  work. 

But  while  the  primary  element  in  religion  is  emo- 
tion, its  relation  to  theology  and  to  the  moral  life  is 


8      Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

a  question  on  which  it  is  necessary  to  reach  a  decision, 
and  the  consideration  of  it  will  help  to  elucidate  what 
has  been  already  said.  I  pass  on  to  discuss  the  rela- 
tion between  religion  and  morality. 

There  is  a  story  told  of  Sam  Jones,  the  American 
revivalist,  which  will  perhaps  serve  to  introduce  this 
part  of  the  subject.  He  was  preaching  to  a  camp- 
meeting  of  coloured  people,  and  they  were  having  an 
ecstatic  time.  Every  face  was  bathed  in  rapture, 
every  sentence  was  punctuated  with  hallelujahs.  The 
preacher,  however,  who  believed  in  a  walk  and  con- 
duct in  harmony  with  the  Gospel,  became  more  and 
more  practical  in  the  treatment  of  his  theme.  And 
as  he  went  on  to  speak,  with  great  point  and  plainness, 
of  such  definite  matters  as  chicken-stealing  a  change 
came  over  the  assembly.  Heads  began  to  droop,  the 
hallelujahs  died  down,  and  the  preacher  continued  his 
discourse  in  a  frigid  silence.  At  last  a  grey-headed 
old  negro  could  bear  it  no  longer  ;  this  was  not  what 
they  had  come  for,  so  he  stepped  up  behind  the  re- 
vivalist and  said  to  him  :  "  Brudder  Jones,  don't  you 
think  you're  kinder  putting  a  damper  on  the  meeting? " 

Why  does  this  story  strike  us  as  it  does  ?  It  is 
because  religion,  as  we  understand  it,  leaves  no  room 
for  chicken-stealing.  Are  we,  then,  to  say  that  the 
camp-meeting  was  made  up  of  hypocrites  ?  That 
would  be  whoDy  to  misunderstand  the  situation.  The 
worshippers  would  have  been  amazed  and  indignant 
had  any  one  hinted  that  they  had  not  "  got  religion," 


JVkat  is  Religion?  9 

as  the  American  phrase  has  it.  And  their  surprise 
would  not  have  been  completely  unjustified.  A  cer- 
tain kind  of  religion  they  undoubtedly  possessed — 
genuine,  too,  so  far  as  it  went.  What  explanation 
can  we  give  of  this  attitude  ? 

All  who  have  read  the  interesting  but  superficial^ 
and  ill-informed  chapter  entitled  "  Rehgion  Given  " 
in  Matthew  Arnold's  Literature  and  Dogma  will  re- 
member that  for  him  rehgion  is  simply  "  morality 
touched  by  emotion,"  that  "  the  object  of  religion  is 
conduct''  and  that  "  conduct  is  three-fourths  of  life." 
This  is  utterly  wide  of  the  mark.  It  would  be  as  true 
to  say  of  many  religions  that  they  are  "  immorality 
touched  by  emotion  "  ;  and,  indeed,  they  have  often 
found  their  most  congenial — nay,  their  supreme-— 
expression  in  what  would  seem  to  us  the  most  revolt- 
ing vice.  When  we  are  determining  the  nature  of 
rehgion  and  its  relation  to  morahty,  it  is  imperative 
for  us  to  keep  these  facts  in  view.  The  lower  religions 
show  us  the  rehgious  instinct  at  work  and  help  us  to 
understand  its  meaning,  and  in  the  hght  of  them  it  is 
clear  that  the  definition  "  morality  touched  by  emo- 
tion "  is  simply  irrelevant.  This  is  not  true  of  savages 
only  ;  even  in  highly  developed  civilisations  the  same 
thing  is  constantly  to  be  found.  In  Greece  itself  moral- 
ity and  religion  were  quite  distinct ;  virtue  was  the 
concern  of  the  philosopher  rather  than  of  the  priest. 

The  single  correct  element  in   Matthew  Arnold's 
definition  is  the  recognition  of  emotion.     But  the 


lo    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

function  he  assigns  to  it  is  quite  foreign  to  its  in- 
trinsic nature.  He  regards  morality  and  religion  as 
fundamentally  the  same  thing  ;  the  only  difference  is 
that  when  a  deep  feeling  pervades  morahty  or  a  glow 
of  emotion  enkindles  it,  we  give  to  this  transfigured 
morality  the  name  of  religion.  The  truth  is  that  re- 
ligion is  not  morality  at  all,  but  it  is  emotion.  As  I 
have  previously  defined  it,  it  is  fellowship  with  the 
Unseen.  Now,  when  the  unseen  powers  were  them- 
selves conceived  as  lustful,  cruel,  false,  it  would  be 
folly  to  imagine  that  fellowship  with  them  would  have 
a  moral  character.  Religion  would  be  the  sanction  of 
men's  passions  rather  than  a  restraint.  And  we  know, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  religion  has  in  many  instances 
worked  for  the  moral  degradation  rather  than  for  the 
upUfting  of  man.  And  even  in  the  religions  which  have 
blended  morality  indissolubly  with  them — the  Religion 
of  Israel  and  Christianity — there  is  much  that  is 
simply  unmeaning  on  Matthew  Arnold's  formula. 
There  are  other  types  of  utterance  than  "  Oh,  how  I 
love  Thy  Law ;  it  is  my  meditation  all  the  day." 
That,  of  course,  is  both  moral  and  religious.  But 
suppose  we  take  such  a  passage  as  this  :  *'  As  the  hart 
panteth  after  the  water-brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul 
after  Thee,  O  God."  Or,  again  :  "  Whom  have  I  in 
heaven  ?  and  possessing  Thee,  I  delight  in  nought 
upon  earth.'*  Surely  these  are  religion  of  the  purest 
kind.  But  what  have  they  to  do  with  morality  or 
with  the  conduct  that  is  tliree-fourths  of  life  ?    For 


WAai  is  Religion  f  II 

religion  there  are  two  beings  in  the  universe — God  and 
the  soul,  the  soul  and  its  God.  It  would  abide  were 
there  no  other  human  being  in  the  world ;  it  is  inde- 
pendent of  those  conditions  which  make  moraht  ' 
possible. 

But,  further,  moraUty  touched  with  emotion  may 
have  no  rehgious  character.  There  are  many  who 
would  definitely  exclude  from  their  theory  of  the 
universe  and  from  the  conduct  of  their  lives  all  belief 
in  or  reference  to  the  unseen  realities.  Yet  they  may 
be  fired  with  passionate  enthusiasm  for  lofty  ideals 
and  generous  actions.  Their  morahty  is  saturated 
with  emotion,  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term. 

Naturally,  when  one  hits  on  Matthew  Arnold's 
amazing  discovery  that  the  Old  Testament  conception 
of  God  was  that  of  an  Eternal  not  ourselves  making 
for  righteousness,  a  stream  of  tendency  manifesting 
itself  in  history,  it  ought  to  occasion  no  surprise  that 
the  theory  of  religion  should  match  it.  The  Hebrews, 
however,  beheved  intensely  in  a  personal  God  who 
bore  a  personal  name,  which  probably  did  not  mean 
"  the  Eternal  "  at  all ;  and  for  them  rehgion  was  not 
a  rule  of  conduct  embraced  with  passion,  but  a  passion 
for  God  Himself.  It  is,  indeed,  the  great  glory  of  the 
Rehgion  of  Israel  and  of  Christianity  that  they  have 
wedded  morality  and  religion,  so  that  the  moral  as 
well  as  the  religious  test  is  applied  to  a  man's  claim 
to  be  a  genuine  Christian  or  an  Israelite  indeed.    That 


12    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  things  in  all  the  world's 
history.  But  we  see  how  wonderful  it  is  only  when 
we  remember  that  through  vast  spaces  of  that  history 
religion  has  been  as  likely  to  work  against  morality  as 
for  it.  In  the  light  of  this  we  realise  the  unique  glory 
of  the  revelation  in  the  Bible :  **  This  is  the  Lord's 
doing ;   it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes." 

When  we  look  at  the  fundamental  facts  of  human 
nature  we  are  struck  by  the  way  in  which  these  two 
forces  often  pull  in  opposite  directions.  Roughly,  one 
might  say  that  a  large  part  of  humanity  is  split  into 
two  classes — those  in  whom  the  ethical  and  those  in 
whom  the  religious  temper  predominates.  The  tend- 
ency of  the  former  is  to  distrust  emotion,  to  dwell  on 
its  moral  perils,  its  relaxing  character,  its  lawless  in- 
stincts. It  looks  with  eyes  of  cold  disapproval  on  the 
excesses  of  reUgion,  from  the  wild  dances  of  savage 
worship  up  to  a  red-hot  Methodist  prayer-meeting. 
To  its  grave,  rigorous  austerity  these  unrestrained 
outbursts  of  feeling  are  not  merely  uncongenial,  but 
fraught  with  possibihties  of  moral  disaster.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  religious  type  of  character  looks  on 
the  ethical  as  cold,  narrow,  and  hide-bound,  as  self- 
excluded  from  the  supreme  beatitude  of  life.  And 
when  we  find  the  moral  type  becoming  religious,  or 
the  religious  follo\\ing  the  strictest  rule  of  moraKty. 
there  is  often  a  difference  in  the  underlying  motive. 
One  will  say,  "  I  must  do  right  at  all  costs,  and  I  am 
religious  because  it  is  my  duty  to  be  so."    The  other 


What  is  Religion  f  13 

■sdll  iAy,  "  Religion  ii  my  deepet t  need,  and  God  is 
my  highest  good.  I  must  be  moral,  for  only  so  can 
I  maintain  my  fellowship  with  my  God  and  express  in 
action  the  love  I  feel  for  Him."  No  doubt  there  are 
many  whose  natures  are  beautifully  poised,  where  the 
moral  and  religious  elements  balance  and  blend.  But 
probably  in  most  people  one  tendency  or  the  other  is 
predominant.  Yet  let  no  one  be  discouraged  because 
he  feels  himself  to  be  defective  on  this  side  or  that. 
We  are  not  abandoned  to  nature,  we  live  in  the  era 
of  God's  omnipotent  grace.  "  On  this  side  of  the  river 
and  on  that  was  the  tree  of  life,  bearing  twelve  manner 
of  fruits,  yielding  its  fruit  every  month :  and  the 
leaves  of  the  tree  were  for  the  healing  of  the  nations." 
Yes,  if  we  feel  that  between  the  two  types  there  runs 
in  nature  this  broad  and  deep  distinction,  there  are 
the  leaves  of  healing  on  this  side  and  on  that. 

So  far,  then,  I  have  sought  to  vindicate  the  radical 
distinction  between  Religion  and  Morality.  They 
spring  from  wholly  different  instincts  in  our  nature, 
and  are  often  fotmd  acting  in  antagonism,  or  viewing 
each  other  with  mutual  distrust  and  disdain.  Morality 
is  a  thing  of  order  and  law  ;  its  tendency  is  to  enthrone 
decorum  and  respectabihty.  Religion  defies  conven- 
tionality, and  bursts  the  strait  waistcoat  in  which 
propriety  would  fetter  it.  It  is  an  explosive  force.  I 
often  think  of  it  as  a  kind  of  spiritual  dynamite.  It 
is  incalculable  in  its  movement :  "  Thou  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  cometh  or  whither  it  goeth."    It  does  not 


14    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

conform  to  precedent  or  confine  itself  to  grooves,  but 
cuts  for  itself  the  channel  in  which  its  hot  lava  runs. 
The  contrast  comes  out  clearly  enough  in  the  story  of 
David  and  Michal.  When  David  danced  before  the 
ark  with  all  his  might,  he  was  utterly  careless  about 
the  decorum  of  his  conduct.  It  was  not  simply  that 
it  was  indecorous  for  a  king  to  act  as  he  did.  It  is 
quite  plain  from  the  story  that  Michal  felt  his  dancing 
to  fall  below  the  standard  of  decency  which  any  re- 
spectable Hebrew  would  maintain.  In  her  eyes  David 
had  acted  as  one  of  the  vile  fellows,  to  such  a  pass 
religious  excitement  had  brought  him.  That  is  the 
verdict  of  Morality.  David,  so  far  from  denying  the 
accusation,  glories  in  it :  "  For  God's  sake  I  will  be 
yet  more  vile."  Religious  passion  carries  him  past 
the  bounds  that  austere  morality  would  impose. 

Rehgion  and  morality  have  each  their  due  place  in 
human  hfe.  And  this  creates  the  difficult  problem  of 
their  adjustment.  This  is  not  to  be  effected  through 
the  absorption  of  one  by  the  other.  There  are  many 
who  degrade  religion  into  mere  philanthropy,  while 
others  will  see  in  it  only  a  warmer  morahty.  Many, 
again,  make  a  fervent  religion  cover  conspicuous  moral 
deficiencies.  But  we  must  insist  that  each  shall  have 
its  rights  regarded  and  maintained.  And  since  no 
satisfaction  can  be  won  while  the  soul  is  torn  by  con- 
flicting tendencies,  we  must  reach  the  point  where 
they  blend  in  perfect  harmony.  It  is,  as  I  have  said 
before,  peculiarly  the  achievement  of  the  higher  re- 


What  is  Religion  f  15 

ligion  of  Israel  and  of  the  Gospel  to  have  effected 
this  union  with  complete  success.  The  Hebrew  pro- 
phets were  confronted  with  a  religion  that  went  hand- 
in-hand  with  pitiless  oppression,  with  the  denial  or 
maladministration  of  justice,  with  shameless  immor- 
ality. Some  of  them,  like  Amos,  spoke  to  the  con- 
science of  the  people,  with  the  stem  declaration  that 
the  righteousness  of  Israel's  God  would  make  Him 
merciless  to  the  sin  of  His  people.  It  was  not  in 
costly  offerings,  in  splendid  feasts,  in  gorgeous  cere- 
monies or  thrilling  music  that  acceptable  service  must 
be  rendered  to  Him.  "  I  hate,  I  despise  your  feasts, 
and  I  will  take  no  delight  in  your  solemn  assembhes. 
Yea,  though  ye  offer  me  your  burnt  offerings  and  your 
meat  offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them :  neither  will  I 
regard  the  peace  offerings  of  your  fat  beasts.  Take 
thou  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy  songs,  for  I  will 
not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols.  But  let  judgement 
roll  down  as  waters  and  righteousness  as  an  ever- 
flowing  stream."  For  Amos  morality  was  the  supreme 
worship  that  the  nation  rendered  to  God.  It  was  so 
because  he  realised  with  such  intensity  the  moral 
character  of  God.  His  message,  it  is  true,  needed  to 
be  supplemented  on  many  sides.  But  he  grasped  with 
almost  unparalleled  power,  and  expressed  with  a  clear- 
ness that  left  nothing  to  be  desired,  his  fundamental 
axiom  :  The  God  of  Israel  is  a  righteous  God,  and 
demands  righteousness  in  His  people.  The  moralising 
of  the  Deity  involves  the  moralising  of  the  religion. 


1 6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

With  Hosea  the  primary  stress  was  not,  as  with  Amos, 
on  the  ethical,  but  on  the  religious.  For  him  the  rela- 
tion of  Israel  to  God  is  supreme.  It  is  the  perversion 
of  this  which  has  brought  moral  evil  in  its  train.  It  is 
because  the  nation  has  been  untrue  to  the  marriage 
troth,  has  forsaken  Yahweh  for  the  Baalim,  that  its 
life  is  so  stained  with  vice  and  crime.  But  though  the 
emphasis  is  placed  differently  by  the  two  prophets, 
they  both  start  from  the  same  principle.  The  God  of 
Israel  is  a  moral  Deity ;  that  can  be  no  true  religion 
of  Israel  which  sanctions  vice  or  is  indifferent  to  right- 
eousness. Their  work  was  carried  forward  by  their 
successors,  who  burnt  the  truth  they  proclaimed  into 
the  conscience  of  their  people.  And  the  flower  of  all 
this  glorious  development  was  Christianity.  So  com- 
pletely did  the  Gospel  fuse  religion  and  morality  into 
one  that  it  often  comes  as  a  startling  novelty  to  a  man 
when  he  is  told  that  the  two  are  quite  distinct.  No 
higher  tribute  can  be  paid  to  the  success  with  which 
they  have  been  blended  by  Christianity. 

Yet  the  clearness  with  which  this  is  expressed  in 
the  Bible  has  not  prevented  the  most  astonishing 
deviation  from  its  teaching  among  those  who  take  it 
as  their  rule  of  life.  Much  of  Christian  history  has 
been  of  the  most  painful  and  disappointing  character. 
Largely,  this  must  be  accounted  for  by  a  very  obvious 
consideration.  The  level  of  morality  in  the  heathen 
world  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  first  touched  it 
was  indescribably  low.    The  new  religion  was  planted 


What  is  Religion  f  17 

in  an  uncongenial  paganism,  like  leaven  in  the  large 
mass  of  unleavened  meal.  Its  external  progress  far 
outstripped  the  internal.  The  world  became  nominally 
Christian  while  it  was  heathen  at  its  heart.  The  rate 
of  advance  was  so  slow,  that  retrogression  rather  than 
progress  seemed  often  to  be  the  result.  Yet  the 
tide  moved  forward,  though  the  spent  waves  often 
appeared  to  be  receding.  Much  has  still  to  be 
done  ere  our  civilisation  is  penetrated  with  the 
Christian  spirit.  But  it  is  more  and  more  recog- 
nised that  on  the  one  side  no  independent  system  of 
philosophy  and  no  rival  rehgion  pitches  the  ethical 
standard  so  high  as  the  Gospel ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  none  gives  such  power  to  respond  to  the  demand. 
A  non-moral  Christianity  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
But  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised,  in  the  Hght  of  the 
analysis  I  have  given,  when  we  are  confronted  by  the 
unhappy  spectacle  of  a  profession  of  rehgion  actom 
panied  by  a  low  morality.  The  pious  scoundrel,  in 
the  form  of  a  fraudulent  director  or  trustee,  or  a  man 
convicted  of  drunkenness  or  immorality,  is  indeed  a 
painful  sight,  a  sore  scandal  to  the  Church  and  a  re- 
proach to  rehgion.  Yet  he  need  not  be  a  hypocrite. 
There  are,  no  doubt,  always  specimens  of  the  ancient 
class  who  devour  widows'  houses,  and  for  a  pretence 
make  long  prayers.  But,  quite  apart  from  these,  there 
are  the  people  who  have  genuine  religious  feelings  and 
desires,  but  combine  with  them  a  low  moral  standard. 
Partly  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they  are  much 


1 8    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

more  developed  on  the  religious  than  on  the  ethical 
side.  To  some  extent  it  is  due  to  sheer  blindness  of 
perception.  There  were  many  holy  people  not  long 
ago  who  thought  that  it  was  quite  right  to  keep  slaves. 
And  I  have  heard  of  a  director  who  was  so  religious 
that  he  would  not  read  a  newspaper  on  Monday  be- 
cause it  had  been  printed  on  Sunday,  who  yet  was 
responsible,  with  his  colleagues,  for  a  colossal  financial 
disaster  which  plunged  thousands  into  ruin.  But  we 
must  also  fall  back  on  our  principle  of  the  radical  dis- 
tinction of  Religion  and  Morality  and  the  frequent 
antagonism  between  them  in  the  lower  stages  of  their 
development. 

Religion  convulses  a  man  to  the  depths,  and  it  is 
not  strange  that  when  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep 
are  broken  up  some  very  offensive  mud  should  occa- 
sionally be  stirred  to  the  surface.  It  is  the  very  strong 
sense  of  this  which  has  contributed  in  many  minds 
to  the  distrust  of  revivals.  They  dislike  the  crisis 
type  of  rehgion,  prefer  that  conversion  should  be 
gradual  and  unexciting,  pass  through  a  given  order, 
and  be  conducted  regularly  throughout. 

What  should  our  own  attitude  be  in  reference  to 
this  ?  I  think  we  cannot  so  far  deny  our  deepest  con- 
victions as  calmly  to  set  aside  the  passionately  emo- 
tional type  of  religion.  Yet  just  because  it  is  emotional, 
and  passionately  emotional,  we  must  frankly  recog- 
nise its  moral  perils  and  take  precautions  against  them. 
A  wise  training  in  the  moral  life  from  the  earliest 


What  is  Religion  f  19 

years  may  root  the  ethical  character  so  firmly  that  no 
giist  of  passion  will  hereafter  be  able  to  snap  it.  A 
steady  insistence,  as  we  preach  religion,  on  the  moral 
quahties  that  our  religion  demands  may  also  piove  a 
powerful  safeguard.  Above  all,  as  we  stimulate 
emotion  let  us  guide  it  into  ethical  channels.  Let  it 
be  clearly  understood  that,  while  on  the  one  hand 
religion  is  the  best  creator  of  morality,  on  the  other 
hand  morality  is  necessary  if  the  religious  instinct  is 
to  receive  its  fullest  satisfaction.  It  is  only  the  holy 
who  can  realise  that  perfect  fellowship  with  the  Holy 
God  in  which  the  highest  and  purest  bliss  of  religion 
is  to  be  found. 

But  now  I  ask  the  question  which  presses  on  the 
mind  of  many  :  Is  rehgion  destined  to  be  a  perma- 
nent element  in  human  life  ?  Few  things  are  more 
impressive  than  this,  that  everywhere  religion  is 
characteristic  of  man.  To  me  it  is  the  sure  promise 
that  rehgion  cannot  die.  The  frequent  assertions  that 
there  are  tribes  without  religion  are  not  endorsed  by 
the  most  competent  anthropologists,  though  the  forms 
it  assumes  may  seem,  through  their  unfamiliarity,  to 
have  no  definitely  religious  character.  To  the  savage 
religion  is  often  one  of  the  main  concerns  of  Hfe, 
bound  up  with  all  his  dearest  interests  and  inseparable 
from  all  his  activities.  Its  rites  are  fraught  with 
energ}^  of  the  most  potent  kind ;  the  powers  with 
whom  it  brings  him  into  contact  are  mighty  to  work 
him  weal  or  bane.     He  jealously  guards  the  sacred 


20    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ceremonies  from  all  that  would  profane  them ;  the 
eye  of  the  uninitiated  may  not  see  the  holy  mysteries, 
nor  must  his  ear  ever  listen  to  the  secret  lore.  Hence 
the  traveller  may  know  much  of  the  ordinary  Hfe  of  a 
tribe,  while  he  remains  completely  ignorant  that  it 
possesses  a  reUgion  at  all.  Even  after  he  has  won  its 
confidence,  disarmed  its  suspicion,  and  thawed  its 
reserve,  he  may  still  be  excluded  from  knowledge  of 
its  religion.  Again  and  again  prolonged  intimacy  has 
discovered  what  for  years  had  evaded  the  closest 
scrutiny,  and  the  "  irreligious  "  tribe  has  been  foimd 
to  possess  a  religion  of  a  very  elaborate  kind. 

Few  things  are  more  impressive  than  this,  that 
everywhere  rehgion  is  characteristic  of  man.  To  me 
it  is  the  sure  promise  that  rehgion  must  be  a  per- 
manent element  in  human  hfe.  If  it  is  said  that  with 
the  repulsive  and  cruel  heathenism  of  howhng  savages 
we  can  have  nothing  to  do,  since  religion  means  such 
utterly  different  things  in  their  case  and  ours,  that  is 
wholly  to  miss  the  point.  If  one  were  to  say  that 
hunger  is  not  to  be  counted  on  as  a  permanent  factor 
in  the  upward  movement  of  the  race  because  the 
feasts  of  the  savage  are  so  different  from  our  own,  the 
fallacy  of  such  an  argument  would  impose  on  no  one. 
It  is  the  same  instinct  in  them  and  in  us,  though 
what  is  satisfaction  to  the  one  would  inspire  nothing  but 
loathing  in  the  other.  What  is  important  is,  not  that 
this  or  that  type  of  food  is  taken,  coarse  and  dis- 
gusting here,  refined  and  dehcate  there,  but  that  ia 


Wkat  is  Religion?  21 

each  case  the  same  imperious  craving  makes  itself 
felt.  And  as  with  the  hunger  of  the  body  so  it  is  with 
the  hunger  of  the  soul.  In  the  breast  of  every  man 
this  longing  is  implanted,  the  sense  of  need,  the  aspira- 
tion for  something  higher  to  complete  and  crown  his 
life.  It  stings  the  spirit  out  of  contentment  with  the 
world,  and  bids  it  launch  itself  into  the  unknown.  It 
assures  man  that  he  is  made  for  the  infinite,  that  time 
and  space  are  not  his  measure,  and  can  in  no  wise 
meet  his  profoundest  needs.  It  prophesies  to  him  of 
the  unseen,  and  tells  him  that  there  he  must  seek  the 
springs  which  will  slake  his  inward  thirst. 

Thus  the  crudity  of  man's  earher  ideas,  the  repul- 
sive nature  of  the  practices  through  which  the  religious 
instinct  sought  its  gratification,  must  not  bhnd  us  to 
the  essential  meaning  of  the  omnipresence  of  rehgion. 
We  do  not  judge  the  meaning  of  our  physical  faculties 
by  the  random  movements  of  the  infant,  his  futile 
efforts  to  satisfy  the  desires  that  stir  within  him,  his 
first  stumbling  attempts  to  walk,  his  first  stammering 
utterances.  The  vital  thing,  as  we  all  know,  is  not 
the  expression  of  the  instincts,  but  the  fact  that  the 
instincts  are  there.  What  promise  they  hold  within 
them  becomes  plain  to  us  in  after  days  when  we  see 
the  strong  and  sinewy  athlete,  or  hang  with  dehght 
on  the  orator's  words.  And  so  with  religion.  Its 
meaning  is  revealed  to  us  not  in  its  first  blind  gropings 
after  God,  but  in  Christianity,  its  ultimate  achieve- 
ment.    And  just  as  little  as  we  anticipate  such  a 


22    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

development  in  the  refinement  of  the  satisfactions  we 
give  to  our  physical  instincts  as  shall  lead  to  the  ulti- 
mate extinction  of  these  Listincts  altogether,  so  little 
are  we  entitled  to  imagine  that  a  time  will  come  when 
man  will  outgrow  his  instinct  for  God.  As  surely  as 
the  one  is  a  permanent  part  of  our  bodily,  so  surely 
is  the  other  inextricably  woven  into  the  very  texture 
of  intellect  and  spirit.  And  this  lies  in  the  very  con- 
ditions under  which  we  live.  However  science  unveils 
for  us  the  secrets  of  the  material  universe,  with  what- 
ever subtlety  of  research  the  psychologist  drives  his 
shafts  into  the  bed-rock  of  human  personaHty  and 
brings  to  light  the  hidden  thoughts  and  emotions  of 
the  unconscious  or  sub-conscious  self,  man  will  always 
remain  what  he  essentially  is,  a  finite  being  encircled 
and  upheld  by  the  Infinite,  and  slender  will  be  all  the 
store  of  his  knowledge  in  comparison  \^dth  the  vast 
realm  of  mystery  that  is  everywhere  about  him.  The 
utmost  he  can  do  is  to  push  back  a  little  way  on  this 
side  and  on  that  the  pall  of  darkness,  and  enlarge 
by  so  much  the  range  of  light.  And  so  he  will  never 
lose  the  need  for  faith,  or  of  dependence  on  the  power 
that  controls  and  sustains  the  world. 

And  so  I  return  to  the  early  history  of  religion. 
Nature  in  the  higher  realm  is  true  to  the  law  we  find 
in  the  lower.  Organism  responds  to  environment ; 
the  existence  of  the  physical  instinct  is  the  guarantee 
that  the  means  for  its  gratification  are  not  lacking. 
How  othervsise  could  the  organ  develop  ?   how  could 


IVkat  IS  Religion  f  2% 

it,  even  if  it  came  into  existence  ready-made,  fail  to 
perish  through  disuse  ?  We  may  think,  then,  of  man, 
even  at  his  lowest  point,  as  illustrating  this  law  in  his 
spiritual  life.  Just  as  in  the  deep  ocean  the  cuttle- 
fish thro\\^  out  its  groping  tentacles  on  every  side  for 
food,  since  the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing  serve  it 
less  than  the  sense  of  touch,  so  we  may  think  of  the 
soul  of  man  at  the  lowest  bHndly  feeling  for  its  spiritual 
satisfaction,  and  making  tentative  experiments  on 
every  side.  In  some  directions  experiments  would 
result  in  disappointment,  and  gradually  the  attempts 
to  win  nourishment  on  these  lines  would  be  discon- 
tinued as  fruitless.  But  inasmuch  as  the  spiritual 
environment  was  always  there  to  respond  to  the 
activities  of  the  soul,  experiments  in  other  directions 
would  be  rewarded  with  success.  Some  glow  would 
thrill  through  the  spirit ;  the  light  that  lighteneth 
every  man  would  be  doing  His  beneficent  work. 
Doing  it,  it  may  seem  to  us,  at  an  almost  inconceivably 
low  level,  stooping  with  Divine  condescension  to 
the  depths.  But  the  first  step  has  been  taken,  which 
is  the  promise  of  all  that  is  to  follow  ;  rehgion  is  bom 
into  the  world.  Through  what  bUnd  strugglings,  what 
gross  and  revolting  rites,  what  crass  mythologies,  it 
moved  slowly  upward,  from  crudity  to  refinement, 
from  bloodthirsty  cruelty  to  tenderness  and  humanity, 
it  hes  beyond  my  purpose  to  describe.  The  point  I 
wish  to  emphasise  is  that  the  rehgious  instinct  was 
the  universal  agent  in  this  great  development,  and 


^4    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

that  the  instinct  was  met  with  stimulus  and  satisfac- 
tion by  the  living  God,  who  planted  it  in  man's  breeist. 
1  do  not  refer  only  to  that  intense  activity  of  God 
which  we  associate  with  the  religions  of  revelation, 
where  a  special  sensitiveness  was  developed  on  the  one 
side  and  a  special  response  was  accorded  to  it  on  the 
other,  culminating  in  the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of 
God.  Here  God  strikes  more  strongly  into  the  current. 
But  we  must  also  confess  that  the  first  tiniest  tricklings 
of  the  stream  were  not  without  His  loving  and  watch- 
ful care.  The  random  and  feeble  stretching  of  hands 
in  dumb  and  barely  conscious  appeal  did  not  pass 
unnoticed,  nor  was  it  noticed  only  to  be  despised.  Some 
answer  came  to  those  prayers  of  weakness  and  ignorance, 
an  answer  that  fostered  the  tiny  spark  of  devotion. 

It  may  seem  to  not  a  few  that  I  am  dealing  with  re- 
mote questions,  with  little  bearing  on  the  conditions 
which  set  us  our  practical  problem.  Even  were  that 
the  case,  I  should  still  feel  that  I  was  justified  in  lay- 
ing foundations  even  if  they  were  sunk  some  distance 
below  the  surface.  But  what  I  have  said  seems  to 
me  to  bear  directly  on  one  of  the  gravest  issues  which 
we  are  called  to  face.  The  impression  is  being  in- 
dustriously diffused  that  the  day  for  religion  is  nearly 
done,  and  that  it  will  soon  be  numbered  with  obsolete 
antiquities.  Our  own  young  people  are  exposed  to 
this  influence  ;  and  what  with  skilful  sapping  and 
minmg,  and  what  with  confident  direct  assault,  faith 
is  often  in  danger  of  coDapse.    Naturally  the  Christian 


What  is  Religion?  25 

case  does  not  lend  itself  to  brief  demonstration,  and 
the  impatient  temper  can  be  catered  for  more  easily 
by  the  telling  proofs  from  the  rationalistic  side,  that 
religion  is  a  superannuated  absurdity,  than  by  the 
weaving  of  threads  of  argument  into  a  reasoned  justi- 
fication for  belief  in  Christianity.  Yet  there  are  some 
arguments  that  admit  of  being  stated  with  cogency 
and  brevity  which  are  also  singularly  impressive  in  their 
character.  And  one  of  these  is  the  proof  from  the 
universality  of  religion.  What  is  universal  in  human 
experience  may  be  justly  inferred  to  be  permanent. 
Moreover,  on  an  evolutionary  theory  it  seems  difficult 
to  escape  the  inference  that  the  very  existence  of  the 
religious  instinct,  and  still  more  its  invariable  mani- 
festation in  all  the  Hfe  of  man,  proves  the  existence  of 
a  spiritual  universe.  Otherwise  we  should  have  the 
spectacle  of  a  faculty  brought  into  existence,  gradually 
developing,  persisting  amid  all  change,  and  yet  doing 
all  this  with  no  environment  to  which  it  could  corre- 
spond. If  that  is  inconceivable,  then  the  existence  and 
diffusion  of  religion  prove  conclusively  that  there  is  a 
spiritual  universe,  though  the  nature  of  that  universe 
has  to  be  more  precisely  determined  in  other  ways. 

And  in  view  of  these  facts  we  may  quietly  bear  the 
criticism  that  human  conceit  alone  could  imagine  that 
between  God  and  man  there  could  be  these  intimate 
relations.  It  is  urged  that  the  insignificance  of  man 
precludes  any  thought  so  madly  presumptuous  as  that 
the  infinite  and  eternal  God  should  enter  into  fellow- 


26    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ship  with  him.  Dweller  in  a  world  so  tiny,  that  it  is 
but  as  nothing  in  the  vast  universe  ;  with  a  life  briefer 
than  a  pulse-beat  of  eternity  ;  weaker  than  the  forces 
of  his  own  little  world  beyond  all  comparison ;  what 
is  he  that  God  should  spend  a  second  thought  upon 
him  ?  Such  an  objection  is  telling,  but  far  from  con- 
clusive. So  far  as  the  vastness  of  the  universe  goes, 
it  is  sufficiently  met  by  the  consideration  that  phy- 
sical size  is  not  a  criterion  of  worth.  Matter  and  mind 
are  not  to  be  named  together  as  if  they  could  be  com- 
pared with  each  other.  The  mind  of  the  weakest  and 
most  degraded  of  men  is  greater  in  intrinsic  worth  than 
the  whole  universe  of  unconscious  matter.  It  stands 
nearer  to  God,  the  Supreme  Mind ;  and  in  virtue  of 
this  common  element  of  thought  and  emotion  is  not 
wholly  wanting  in  capacity  for  communion  with  Him. 
But  it  is  not  the  material  universe,  perhaps,  that 
causes  the  greatest  difficulties.  The  teeming  in- 
habitants of  these  other  worlds — does  not  man  dwindle 
into  insignificance  by  their  side  ?  But  this  is  only  the 
child's  difficulty  in  another  form  :  How  can  God  listen 
to  so  many  children  all  saying  their  prayers  at  the 
same  time  ?  It  is  answered  by  a  consideration  of 
God's  greatness.  The  Infinite  can  care  for  smaU  as 
well  as  great ;  His  resources  cannot  be  overtaxed. 
That  He  so  cares  for  man  as  to  prize  communion  with 
him  is  confirmed  by  the  universal  religious  instinct, 
in  which  He  reveals  Himself  as  Spirit  seeking  fellow- 
ship with  the  spirit  of  man. 


What  is  Religion?  a 7 

On  the  other  hand,  some  may  say  :  "  If  there  is  a 
God,  why  should  I  have  anything  to  do  with  Him  ? 
I  have  no  wish  to  be  religious ;  and  I  will  live  my 
own  Hfe,  independent  of  any  higher  Power."  From 
the  point  we  have  reached,  this  cannot  be  so  effectually 
dealt  with  as  from  the  Christian  standpoint.  But  it 
may  at  least  be  said  that  such  a  man  is  deliberately 
maiming  his  life.  If  we  would  live  healthfully  and 
happily,  we  must  live  in  harmony  with  the  law  of  our 
own  being.  Our  ideal  should  be  completeness,  so  that 
no  side  of  our  complex  nature  should  be  left  un- 
exercised. Many  who  readily  admit  this  for  the  body 
and  intellect,  and  patiently  train  them  that  pro- 
ficiency may  be  attained,  leave  the  spiritual  life  quite 
uncultivated.  Now,  if  religion  were  a  mere  accident 
in  human  life,  this  might  be  defended.  But  its  uni- 
versal presence  in  humanity  warrants  our  belief  that 
it  is  part  of  the  very  constitution  of  man  to  be  religious. 
The  non-religious  man,  therefore,  is  incompletely 
human — deficient  in  the  highest  and  best  prerogative 
of  our  race.  I  do  not  speak  here  of  his  duty  to  be 
religious,  but  of  the  immeasurable  loss  to  the  man 
himself  if  he  fails  to  be  so.  And  this  is  loss,  not  only 
of  development,  but  of  the  refreshment  of  spirit  that 
reUgion  gives.  The  inward  freedom  and  contentment, 
the  deep,  untroubled  peace  and  the  rapturous  joy,  the 
sense  of  mastery,  the  uplifting  communion — all  these, 
which  religion  gives  as  no  other  power  can,  are  but  a 
part  of  what  he  loses.    Even  so  the  price  is  too  high. 


CHAPTER  II 
HAS   THEOLOGY   HAD   ITS   DAY? 

FEW  things  are  more  familiar  than  the  impatience 
with  which  many  in  our  day  regard  theology. 
The  man  m  the  street  looks  at  theological  dogmas  as 
so  many  brilliant  efforts  of  word-spinners,  and  can 
scarcely  think  himself  into  the  point  of  view  of  those 
who  fought  so  tenaciously  the  battles  of  dogmatic 
definition  in  the  great  Councils.  What  he  cares  about, 
he  will  tell  you,  is  not  creeds,  but  conduct ;  not  the 
decisions  of  (Ecumenical  Councils,  but  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  Nor  is  this  protest  without  a  certain 
justification.  Theology  in  the  past  has  exposed  itself 
to  many  of  the  criticisms  that  are  now  offered  upon  it. 
It  has  suffered  from  a  tendency  to  excessive  minute- 
ness of  definition,  from  a  failure  to  confront  its  theories 
with  the  facts  of  Scripture  and  experience,  from  an 
academic  seclusion  which  has  kept  it  out  of  touch  with 
life.  It  aimed  too  much  at  omniscience,  and  its  charts 
of  the  spiritual  universe  were  filled  in  with  a  precision 
and  a  wealth  of  detail  which  strikes  us  to-day  as 
astonishing.  There  is  much  that,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  cannot  be  grasped  by  human  intelligence, 

28 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day  f  29 

on  which,  however,  the  theologians  were  unwilling  to 
confess  ignorance.  They  were  in  danger  of  disguising 
in  a  mist  of  fine-spun  phrases  their  inabOity  to  ex- 
pound the  unintelligible. 

Yet  some  things  may  be  urged  in  arrest  of  this 
judgment.  In  the  first  place  I  think  that  the  im- 
patience of  theology  is  largely  exaggerated.  It  is  a 
significant  fact  that  when  some  great  theological 
problem  is  being  discussed  in  the  pulpit  or  in  fiction 
a  very  widespread  interest  is  at  once  excited.  How- 
ever the  hearers  may  applaud  a  pubHc  speaker  who 
denounces  theology  in  favour  of  a  social  or  ethical 
gospel,  it  is  remarkable  how  keen  is  the  attention 
aroused  by  the  discussion  of  these  questions.  The 
attendance  in  our  churches  may  be  far  from  what  we 
could  desire,  yet  religion  is  the  only  topic  that  could 
draw  together  week  by  week  the  multitudes  who  are 
found  in  our  places  of  worship.  And  as  to  the  criti- 
cisms of  the  man  in  the  street,  one  could,  indeed,  wish 
that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  really  held  the  place 
in  his  Ufe  which  he  fondly  assigns  to  it ;  but,  quite 
apart  from  that,  he  does  not  stand  so  aloof  from 
creeds  and  dogma  as  he  himself  imagines.  Pope's 
famous  couplet,  which  relegates  to  graceless  zealots 
disputes  on  dogma,  and  affirms  that  "  he  can't  be 
wrong  whose  Ufe  is  in  the  right,"  probably  expresses 
what  he  supposes  himself  to  believe,  yet  he  is,  no 
doubt,  much  more  interested  in  discussions  on  theology 
than  he  is  himself  aw^r^. 


30    Christianity :  its  Nature  a7td  its  Truth 

In  the  next  place  such  impatience  with  theology  as 
is  manifested  must  not  be  wholly  put  down  to  the 
account  of  the  theologians.  It  is  partly  due  to  the 
mental  habit  of  our  own  time.  Whether  it  is  the  rush 
of  life,  that  leaves  men  no  time  to  think,  or  whether 
it  is  the  fiabbiness  of  a  mind  fed  only  on  the  news- 
paper and  light  Hterature,  or  the  drugging  of  in- 
tellectual tastes  by  the  thirst  for  pleasure  and  excite- 
ment, the  ominous  facts  admit  of  no  denial.  Our  age 
has  lost  the  secret  of  meditation  ;  it  is  impatient  of 
brooding  thought.  It  is  incapable  of  sustained  mental 
exercise ;  it  flits  like  a  butterfly  from  one  thing  to 
another ;  its  interests  are  alert,  but  they  are  easily 
fatigued.  It  is  not  theology  alone  which  suffers  from 
this,  but  the  deep  and  serious  treatment  of  all  intel- 
lectual themes.  Yet  I  am  sure  that  there  are  very 
many  who  have  escaped  the  mental  demoralisation 
of  which  I  have  spoken,  and  who  will  welcome  a 
serious  attempt  to  expound  in  plain  language  the 
deep  things  of  God.  They  are  not  afraid  to  face  the 
task  of  thinking  God's  great  thoughts  after  Him,  if 
only  they  can  be  brought  face  to  face  with  the  essen- 
tial truth  and  not  be  compelled  to  penetrate  through 
a  jargon  of  technical  terms  to  the  secret  that  lurks  at 
the  centre. 

And  while  it  must  be  frankly  confessed  that  theology 
has  been  too  much  given  to  abstractions  and  to  hair- 
spUtting,  yet  even  here  we  must  beware  of  off-hand 
judgments.    The  plain  man  is  prone  to  regard  certaiji 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day?  31 

doctrines  as  mere  verbal  puzzles  or  subtle  quibbles. 
Yet  more  accurate  knowledge  will  show  that  what 
seems  to  be  a  distinction  without  a  difference  may  be 
of  vital  significance.  A  razor  edge  may  divide  the 
two,  but  it  is,  perhaps,  a  watershed  that  determines 
the  direction  in  which  the  great  river  of  thought  is  to 
run.  How  contemptuous  the  man  in  the  street  would 
be  of  ecclesiastics  contending  over  the  "  homoousion  '* 
and  the  "  homoiousion  " — the  question  whether  the 
Son  was  "  of  the  same  essence  "  or  "of  like  essence  " 
with  the  Father.  "  Christendom  rent  over  a  diph- 
thong !  "  he  exclaims  in  scorn.  Yet  the  scorn  might 
be  reserved  for  a  worthier  object,  since  the  question 
at  issue  in  the  Arian  controversy  was  this  :  Is  Chris- 
tianity to  remain  a  monotheism  or  to  become  a  new 
paganism  ?  And  frequently  it  will  be  found  that 
questions  which  on  the  surface  seem  devoid  of  all 
practical  importance  are  really  matters  of  the  most 
serious  practical  concern. 

Nor  is  there  any  real  warrant  for  an  outcry  against 
the  abstruseness  of  theology.  When  everything  has 
been  done  to  make  things  simple,  the  fact  remains 
that  we  live  in  a  complex  and  mysterious  universe. 
Nothing  is  gained  by  simplification  at  the  cost  of 
fidehty  to  truth,  and  it  is  not  always  by  any  means 
a  recommendation  to  a  view  that  every  element  of 
obscurity  has  been  eliminated  from  it.  It  is  good  for 
us  to  be  baffled  in  our  quest,  to  learn  the  Hmits  of  our 
power,  to  be  humbled  by  the  vision  of  the  vast  ocean 


32    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

of  truth,  to  be  awed  by  the  sense  of  mystery.  I  am 
myself  all  for  lucidity  of  statement  where  that  can  be 
rightly  attained,  but  I  do  not  forget  that  there  is  such 
a  thing  as  a  profane  lucidity  which  has  lost  all  sense 
of  mystery.  It  is  easy  in  our  blindness  to  become 
intellectual  Pharisees  and  pride  ourselves  on  the 
narrow  formula  into  which  we  have  succeeded  in 
packing  the  universe.  What,  we  may  truly  ask,  would 
any  account  of  the  Infinite  be  worth  to  us  which  pro- 
fessed to  level  it  down  to  the  comprehension  of  our 
finite  intelligence  ?  A  God  whom  we  could  wholly 
understand  would  be  no  God  for  us.  It  is  not  mystery 
from  which  we  need  to  shrink,  but  something  that  is 
at  times  confounded  with  it. 

There  are  some  theologians  who  have  gloried  in 
the  irrational.  Their  motto  is,  "I  believe  it  because 
it  is  absurd,'*  the  phraise  in  which  Tertullian  boasted 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  intellect.  But  we  must  beware 
of  identifying  the  mysterious  with  the  irrational.  A 
religion  that  did  not  transcend  the  reach  of  our  un- 
aided reason  and  demand  our  faith  would  be  without 
value  to  us.  But  a  religion  that  contradicted  reason 
would  be  simply  incredible.  They  are  no  true  friends 
of  the  Gospel  who  divorce  faith  from  the  intellect, 
and  that  way  the  renunciation  of  faith  ultimately  lies. 
And  we  must  also  beware  of  confounding  mystery 
with  confused  and  incoherent  thinking.  Many  a  man 
has  won  a  credit  for  depth  when  his  thought  was 
jjierely  muddy. 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day  f  33 

I  proceed,  then,  to  give  my  reasons  for  the  high 
estimate  I  place  on  theology  and  for  my  conviction 
that  it  will  remain  a  permanent  element  in  human 
thought. 

Since  it  is  by  the  very  impulse  of  our  nature  that  we 
seek  from  the  tangled  threads  of  emotions  and  ideas 
to  weave  an  ordered  and  luminous  pattern  of  that 
spiritual  universe  in  which  we  have  our  being,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  assert  that  theology  and  religion  are 
inseparably  welded  together.  It  needs,  indeed,  no 
reflection  to  convince  us  that  so  long  as  religion  exi:*'^ 
theology  cannot  cease  to  be,  for  religion  is  a  certain 
experience  involving  a  particular  attitude  to  the 
universe  which  contains  within  it  an  impli*  it  theology. 
So  long  as  we  remain  reasonable  beings  we  must  reflect 
on  our  experience  and  seek  to  understand  it ;  we  can- 
not permanently  remain  content  with  the  incoherent 
and  the  unanalysed ;  we  must  sort  and  sift  our  im- 
pressions and  ideas,  introduce  order  into  them,  and 
bring  system  out  of  the  chaotic  mass.  We  must  seek 
to  imderstand  religion  as  an  organic  and  connected 
whole.  The  practical  side  cannot  content  us,  we  must 
have  a  theory  of  it.  I  can  well  understand  if  vague 
and  random  thinking  were  better  than  thinking  which 
was  clear,  logical,  and  accurate,  and  if  no  thought  at 
all  were  better  than  either,  that  then  we  ought  to 
renounce  any  attempt  to  co-ordinate  the  facts  of 
rehgious  experience  into  a  rational  theory.  But  if  it 
is  an  irrepressible  instinct  within  us  to  win  an  ordered 

D 


34    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

apprehension  of  the  facts  of  life,  to  pass  from  vague- 
ness to  definiteness,  from  obscurity  to  lucidity,  from 
a  disordered  jumble  to  beautiful  harmony,  then  the 
fact  of  religion  forces  upon  us  the  duty  of  a  theology. 
And  since  we  have  reason  to  beheve  in  the  permanence 
of  religion,  we  may  safely  argue  that  theology  will 
not  die. 

I  have,  it  is  true,  argued  that  the  essence  of  religion 
lies  in  feeling.  In  its  widest  apphcation  it  may  be 
defined  as  fellowship  with  the  Unseen.  Rehgion  for 
the  Christian  is  fellowship  with  God  in  Christ.  It  is 
the  sense  of  utter  dependence,  of  glad  surrender,  of 
confident  trust,  of  blessed  communion,  of  self-renoun- 
cing love.  It  finds  its  most  characteristic  expression 
in  rapturous  ecstasy,  or  in  deep,  unruffled  peace. 
But  while  the  glowing  core  of  religion  is  this  deep 
and  passionate  emotion,  it  is  not  an  emotion  directed 
towards  the  vague  or  the  unknown.  I  could  not  deny 
to  that  feeling  which  stands  in  awe  before  this  dark 
and  wonderful  universe  the  name  of  religion.  The 
thrill  of  cosmic  emotion,  the  sense  of  fellowship  with 
Nature,  and  through  Nature  with  the  great  under- 
lying power  that  it  expresses,  is  an  experience  of 
which  one  would  not  speak  lightly. 

But  how  different  that  is  from  the  religion  of  the 
Christian  who  realises  that  the  power  which  manifests 
itself  in  Nature  is  a  self-conscious  Person,  a  holy  Will, 
a  loving  Father,  a  rt deeming  God  !  The  very  quality 
of  the  religious  experience  and  its  intensity  and  depth 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day?  35 

depend  upon  the  views  we  entertain  as  to  the  character 
of  that  Power  with  whom  rehgion  brings  us  into 
fellowship.  "With  whom''  I  say,  and  not  "with 
which  "  ;  and  yet  the  distinction  between  the  two, 
which  makes  all  the  difference  to  the  emotion,  is  the 
intellectual  belief  in  the  personality  of  God. 

It  must  be  clearly  understood  that  in  pleading  that 
we  shall  not  treat  theology  as  an  incubus  of  which 
religion  would  do  well  to  be  rid  I  am  not  taking  the 
point  of  view  of  those  who  say  that  a  system  of  the- 
ology is  settled  for  us  by  revelation,  and  that  we  are 
not  to  exercise  upon  it  our  own  reflective  faculties. 

There  is  a  religious  attitude  which  is  well  illustrated 
by  the  following  story.  A  friend  of  mine  went  into  a 
church  at  a  south-coast  watering-place.  In  the  course 
of  his  sermon  the  preacher  said :  "  Few  things,  my 
friends,  have  done  more  harm  in  this  world  than 
thought."  He  then  proceeded,  though  it  was  surely 
quite  unnecessary  :  "  Don't,  my  dear  friends,  put  me 
down  as  a  thinker,  put  me  down  as  a  believer." 

What,  one  may  ask,  is  the  value  of  belief  without 
thought  ?  It  is  not  belief  in  the  highest  sense,  it  is 
superstition,  it  is  the  acceptance  of  things  on  authority 
and  tradition,  such  as  might  be  found  in  a  heathen 
religion,  where  a  man  refuses  to  accept  the  arguments 
of  the  missionary  with  the  stoUd  reply  that  what  was 
good  enough  for  his  fathers  is  good  enough  for  him. 
Where  would  any  higher  religion  have  been  to-day  ? 
Where  would  our  own  religion  be  had  it  not  been  for 


36    Christianity,  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

thinkers  who  were  not  content  with  tradition  and 
authority  ? 

What  lies  at  the  basis  of  this  pestilent  talk  about 
the  mischief  of  thought  is  the  feeling  that  the  intellect 
is  a  corrosive  agent,  which,  if  it  be  allowed  to  have  its 
freedom,  will  eat  out  the  behef  in  God  and  the  spiritual 
order.  Now,  it  is  true  enough  that  in  many  instances 
the  intellect  does  work  that  way ;  but  the  cure  for 
this  is  not  to  drug  the  reason,  but  to  stimulate  it  to 
probe  more  deeply.  It  is  surely  a  kind  of  atheism  to 
distrust  the  intellect  so  radically,  for  what  kind  of  a 
god  would  he  be  who  furnished  man  for  his  journey 
to  the  Eternal  with  so  misleading  a  guide  ?  If  the 
unfettered  reason  speaks  with  an  atheistic  voice,  we 
may  as  well  throw  up  our  case  at  once. 

The  preacher  would,  I  suppose,  explain  that  the  Bible 
has  taught  us  quite  clearly  what  we  ought  to  believe, 
and  that  we  ought  not  to  allow  a  critical  intellect  to 
play  on  the  utterances  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Where  God 
has  spoken,  it  is  man's  wisdom  to  be  dumb.  It  is 
quite  plain,  however,  that  the  great  systematic  theo- 
logians, while  they  have  shared  that  point  of  view, 
have  not  felt  themselves  debarred  from  thinking  on 
the  truths  of  revelation.  The  labour  they  have  de- 
voted to  them  might  be  truly  called  colossal,  and 
whether  we  agree  with  them  or  not,  we  cannot  deny 
them  the  praise  of  vast  learning  and  intellectual  power. 
The  question,  however,  arises  for  us  whether  the  task 
of  theology  is  simply  to  correlate  the  data  given  in 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day?  37 

Scripture.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  Scripture  itself 
is  not  a  systematic  theology.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is,  I  think,  also  true  that  we  do  not  go  to  Scripture 
alone  for  the  raw  material  out  of  which  our  theological 
fabric  is  to  be  woven.  It  is  clear  enough  that  this  has 
often  been  consciously  recognised.  The  schoolmen 
built  not  on  Scriptinre  only,  but  also  on  Aristotle ; 
and  it  is  plain  that  any  systematic  theology,  for  our 
own  time,  if  it  is  to  be  adequate,  must  take  into 
account  a  very  large  number  of  factors. 

It  is,  no  doubt,  a  sense  of  this  which  has  led  many 
to  feel  that  constructive  theology  is  almost  beginning 
its  work  rather  than  bringing  it  to  a  close.  The  great 
articles  of  faith  may  remain,  but  a  clearer  understand- 
ing of  them  may'  be  possible.  We  may  understand 
their  inter-relations,  we  may  enrich  our  conceptions, 
make  them  less  abstract  and  more  vivid  and  concrete, 
carry  them  from  the  musty  atmosphere  of  the  museum 
into  the  open  air,  bring  them  more  into  contact  with 
practical  life.  We  may  be  willing  to  be  more  ignorant 
than  our  predecessors  would  confess  themselves  to 
be,  simply  because  we  tmderstand  better  the  com- 
plexity of  the  problems  and  the  Hmitations  of  our 
powers.  We  may  freely  recognise  that  they  suffered 
from  an  overweening  self-confidence,  from  a  resolution 
to  leave  nothing  unexplained  ;  we  may  renounce  their 
tendencies  to  hair-splitting  and  minute  precision,  and 
be  willing  to  leave  a  larger  area  of  mystery,  and  to 
acknowledge  that  there  are  things  which  should  lie  in 


38    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  shadows  rather  than  be  brought  into  the  glare  of 
broad  day.  If  we  have  learnt  modesty  and  humihty, 
if  we  confess  ourselves  often  baffled  by  the  unknown, 
if  we  admit  more  heartily  than  theologians  have  often 
admitted  that  God's  thoughts  are  higher  than  our 
thoughts  and  His  ways  past  finding  out,  then  religion 
and  morsdity  stand  alike  to  gain. 

Some  time  ago  I  was  looking  with  some  friends  at 
a  mediaeval  map  of  the  world,  and  it  was  very  in- 
teresting to  see  how  inaccurate  the  author's  conception 
of  geography  was.  A  hberal  theologian,  turning  to 
another  of  rigid  orthodoxy,  said  to  him :  "  That's 
just  about  where  we  are  in  theology."  Now,  we  need 
share  neither  the  standpoint  which  excited  the  remark 
nor  the  disgust  which  the  remark  inspired,  and  yet 
recognise  an  instructive  element  in  the  story.  For 
the  older  systematic  theologians  everything  was 
mapped  out  with  complete  precision.  They  under- 
stood not  only  the  broad  outhnes  of  ocean  and  con- 
tinent, but  every  little  creek  and  inlet  was  definitely 
marked  on  their  theological  maps.  I  think  that  most 
of  us  would  be  willing  to  admit  that  they  went  alto- 
gether too  far  in  the  direction  of  omniscience.  And 
this  feehng  need  not  be  based  wholly  on  the  belief 
that  they  sought  to  attain  the  imattainable ;  it  may 
rest  much  more  on  the  conviction  that  there  are  many 
elements  in  the  problem  of  which  they  took  no  account 
at  all.  They  were  speculating  on  disastrously  imper- 
fect data,  and  their  construction  was  hkely  to  be  faulty. 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day?  39 

The  theologian  of  to-day  will  not,  if  he  is  wise, 
despise  the  past ;  he  will  recognise  that  intellectual 
giants,  such  as  Origen  or  Augustine,  Scotus  Erigena 
or  Thomas  Aquinas,  Calvin  or  Schleiermacher,  can- 
not have  deeply  pondered  on  the  Christian  facts  and 
doctrines  without  having  said  much  that  is  worthy  of 
the  most  respectful  attention.  He  may  profoundly 
disagree  with  much  that  they  have  to  say,  but  he  will 
at  least  be  the  better  for  knowing  that  they  have  said 
it  and  for  understanding  why  he  does  not  agree  with 
them.  At  the  same  time,  he  will  recognise  that,  for 
good  or  ill,  we  Uve  in  our  own  age  and  not  in  theirs, 
and  that  the  scientific  temper  and  outlook  have  made 
things  very  different  for  us. 

The  simple  fact  that  the  Ptolemaic  conception  of 
the  physical  universe  has  given  place  to  the  Copemican 
has  profoundly  modified  the  older  conception  of  the 
world.  Then  how  great  a  difference  has  been  made  by 
the  wide  acceptance  of  a  far-reaching  theory  of  evo- 
lution, not  necessarily  in  this  or  that  particular  form ! 
These  are  changes  which  affect  our  whole  intellectual 
outlook,  including  religion  and  theology. 

Once  more,  the  demand  for  an  ethical  Gospel  is  per- 
fectly vahd  in  itself.  Religion  that  does  not  sanction 
and  inspire  morality  can  command  no  allegiance  from 
us  to-day.  But  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  re- 
ligion depends  for  its  ethical  power  very  largely  on 
theology.  Were  the  theological  element  to  disappear 
from  Christianity,  it  would  be  found,  in  the  long  run, 


40    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

that  much  of  its  moral  power  had  disappeared  with  it. 
It  is  certainly  no  answer  to  this  to  point  out  that 
there  are  many  who  have  abandoned  the  theology  of 
the  Gospel  who  have  retained  its  morahty.  A  flower 
does  not  lose  its  beauty  and  fragrance  the  moment  it 
is  cut  from  its  root,  but  give  it  time  and  the  living 
power  which  it  holds  within  itself  will  quickly  dwindle 
when  its  contact  with  the  earth  is  severed.  And  so 
the  moral  life  of  those  who  have  abandoned  Chris- 
tianity has  often  been  drawn  from  the  Christian  soil 
in  which  it  first  sprang  up.  The  question  is  whether, 
sooner  or  later,  the  logic  of  the  situation  will  not  work 
itself  out,  and  Christian  ethics  go  the  way  of  Christian 
theology.  Indeed,  the  forecast  that  the  surrender  of 
the  one  would,  in  the  long  run,  involve  the  surrender 
of  the  other  is  in  the  way  of  being  verified.  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that  this  will  give  some  pause  to  the  reckless 
utterance  which  we  too  often  hear  to  the  effect  that 
doctrine  is  effete  and  that  preaching  must  be  simply 
ethical. 

Moreover,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  individual  is 
largely  controlled  in  his  conduct  and  outlook  by  the 
social  atmosphere  in  which  he  Hves,  and  that  to  an 
extent  far  greater  than  he  is  aware,  so  that  the  natural 
impulses  are  checked  by  the  moral  and  intellectual 
influences  which  are  all  the  time  playing  upon  and 
moulding  him.  Now,  this  atmosphere,  though  far 
from  what  we  could  wish  it  to  be,  is  nevertheless 
saturated  with  Christian  ideas,  and  the  social  influence 


Has  Theology  had  its  Day?  41 

of  Christianity  thus  remains  active  long  after  its 
influence  in  the  individual  seems  to  have  dwindled  to 
nothing.  The  question  is  not  what  will  happen  in  a 
single  generation,  but  what  is  to  happen  in  the  long 
run.  Intellectually,  the  civilisation  of  Europe  broke 
with  paganism  many  centuries  ago,  but,  morally,  that 
civilisation  has  not  even  yet  succeeded  in  working  out 
its  pagan  leaven.  Hence,  were  Christianity  to  be 
universally  abandoned,  it  might  still  take  many  gene- 
rations before  the  effects  of  that  surrender  would  work 
themselves  out  to  their  ultimate  issues.  I  would  also 
remind  those  who  are  impatient  of  theology,  but  are 
enthusiasts  for  conduct,  that  action  is  often  mis- 
directed because  there  is  no  clear  grasp  of  principles ; 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  man  of  ideas  who 
has  often  effected  the  most  powerful  changes  in  life. 
Luther  brooded  in  his  cell  on  the  problem  of  the 
sinner's  standing  with  God,  and  he  convulsed  Europe 
as  the  result  of  his  meditation.  And,  lastly,  I  would 
urge  that  the  root  of  much  unbelief  or  uncertainty 
lies  in  the  fact  that  people  do  not  understand  their 
own  religion.  Often  they  have  mistaken  some  cari- 
cature of  the  Gospel  for  the  Gospel  itself.  And  he 
who  would  commend  Christianity  to  our  perplexed 
and  distracted  age  must  himself  understand  the  re- 
ligion for  whose  acceptance  he  pleads. 

And  this  has  a  practical  relation  to  the  pulpit. 
There  is  more  staying  power  in  a  ministry  which  gives 
theology  an  important  place  than  in  a  ministry  which 


42    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

lives  from  hand  to  mouth,  to  which  the  last  nine  days, 
wonder  is  the  breath  of  life.  It  is  not  theology  that 
has  wearied  people  ;  it  is  the  insufferable  tediousness, 
the  dry-as-dust  pedantry  with  which  it  was  often 
presented  that  has  wearied  out  the  patience  of  the 
longsuffering  hearer.  There  is  always  room  for  a 
ministry  which  will  patiently  and  sympathetically 
unravel  the  tangle  of  men's  thoughts  on  the  deepest 
things.  For  men  do  think  on  them  even  if  they  have 
ceased  to  look  for  light  from  the  Church,  which  has 
not  been  willing  to  come  down  to  their  platform, 
assuming,  as  is  its  wont,  too  much  faith  in  its  audiences. 


CHAPTER  III 
WHY  I  CANNOT  BE  A  MATERIALIST 

IT  is  not  hard  to  understand  why  materialism 
should  be  so  popular.  In  the  first  place,  in  our 
ordinary  experience  we  are  all  the  time  made  aware 
of  sensations  which  seem  to  prove  to  us  the  existence 
of  a  material  universe.  Along  all  the  avenues  of  the 
senses  there  stream  into  our  consciousness  impressions 
which  we  refer  to  the  material  world  around  us.  Sight 
and  sound,  taste  and  smell  and  touch — these  bring  us, 
in  all  our  waking  moments,  into  conscious  contact 
with  the  external  world.  Little  can  appear  more 
actual  to  us  than  the  objects  about  us.  The  solid 
earth  under  our  feet,  the  starry  sky  above,  the  works 
of  nature,  and  the  constructions  of  man  seem  to  us 
the  most  undeniable  reaUties.  We  act  invariably  on 
the  assumption  that  our  senses  give  us  a  true  report, 
and  that  the  things  which  we  see  and  touch  are  actually 
there.  Now,  this  unceasing  stream  of  impressions  has 
a  tendency  to  swamp  the  impressions  of  a  subtler  and 
less  tangible  kind.  And  since  in  ordinary  life  by  far 
the  greater  proportion  of  our  attention  is  directed  to 

43 


44    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

material  objects,  it  is  not  unnatural  that  many 
should  come  to  forget  that  in  the  intangible  order 
there  may  be  existences  endowed  with  an  even 
intenser  reality.  Hence  we  must  be  on  our  guard  that 
we  do  not  allow  our  judgment  to  be  warped  by  this 
unremitting  pressure  on  <^ur  notice  of  the  things  that 
may  be  handled  and  seen. 

There  is  another  cause  which  has  made  materiaUsm 
a  favourite  theory,  and  that  is  the  marvellous  triumphs 
of  physical  science.  As  it  has  enlarged  the  area  of  its 
investigations  and  won  fresh  territory  from  the  un- 
known, as  it  has  achieved  a  series  of  conquests  of  the 
most  brilliant  kind,  it  is  not  unnatural  that  its  ardent 
votaries  should  forget  its  inherent  limitations.  Hence 
has  arisen  the  remarkable  self-confidence  with  which 
some  scientists  have  imagiaed  that  they  had  in  their 
hands  the  key  to  aU  knowledge.  Since  matter  and 
energy  seemed  able  to  accomphsh  so  much,  we  ought 
not  to  be  surprised  that  they  were  hailed  as  com- 
petent to  explain  all  the  mysteries  of  the  universe. 
And  so  we  had  Professor  T5mdall,  hi  his  famous  Belfast 
address,  making  the  often-quoted  assertion  :  "  By  an 
intellectual  necessity  I  cross  the  boundary  of  the  ex- 
perimental evidence,  and  discern  in  that  matter  which 
we,  in  our  ignorance  of  its  latent  powers,  and  notwith- 
standing our  professed  reverence  for  its  Creator,  have 
hitherto  covered  with  opprobrium,  the  promise  and 
potency  of  all  terrestrial  life."  In  spite,  however, 
of  the  attractiveness  which  materiaUsm  possesses  for 


Why  I  cannot  be  a  Materialist  45 

the  scientist,  it  is  not  likely  that  it  will  permanently 
maintain  its  ground.  Some,  no  doubt,  accept  it  and 
cleave  to  it,  but  it  is  more  Hkely  to  be  a  temporary 
stage  of  thought  among  those  who  are  really  con- 
cerned to  think  out  the  questions  that  are  involved. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  remarkable  fact  that  some  of  the  most 
eminent  scientists  who  have  at  one  period  of  their 
career  accepted  some  form  of  materiahsm  have  been 
forced  from  it  by  deeper  reflection.  This  is  true  of  a 
psychologist  so  eminent  as  Wundt  and  a  scientist  so 
distinguished  as  Virchow.  Those  who  in  their  eager 
youth  were  fascinated  by  these  principles,  as  they 
came  to  understand  more  accurately  the  conditions 
of  the  problem,  saw  that  materialism  was  inadequate 
to  account  for  them. 

One  of  the  most  eminent  of  German  physiologists 
was  Du  Bois-Raymond.  He  had  a  strong  inclination 
to  materialism,  and  referred  contemptuously  to 
"  theological  madness."  Yet  in  the  very  address  in 
which  this  expression  occurred  he  propounded  seven 
problems  which  at  the  time  seemed  to  him  to  be  in- 
soluble, though  he  anticipated  that  four  of  these  might 
ultimately  be  explained.  Naturally  this  conviction 
exposed  him  to  fanatical  denunciation  from  thorough- 
going materialists  as  one  of  the  black  gang,  and  it  was 
a  confession,  all  the  more  striking  that  it  was  extorted 
from  him,  of  the  intellectual  bankruptcy  of  dogmatic 
materialism.  The  seven  riddles  of  the  universe  enu- 
merated by  Du  Bois-Raymond  were  as  follows  :   The 


46    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

existence  of  matter  and  force  ;  the  origin  of  motion  ; 
the  origin  of  life ;  the  appearance  of  design  in  Nature ; 
the  existence  of  consciousness;  intelhgent  thought 
and  the  origin  of  speech;  the  question  of  free-will. 
For  an  admirable  account  of  this  author's  lecture 
and  the  controversy  to  which  it  gave  rise  I  may 
refer  to  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Kennedy's  Natural  Theology 
and  Modern  Thought,  a  book  which  may  be  warmly 
recommended  for  much  excellent  and  valuable  dis- 
cussion of  these  themes.  Our  present  discussion  is 
directly  concerned  with  several  of  these  enigmas,  and 
recent  investigations  have  not  by  any  means  made 
the  problem  more  easy  for  the  materialist. 

I  begin  with  the  question  as  to  the  constitution  of 
matter.  It  is  a  remarkable  thing  that  here  we  are  in 
a  state  of  great  ignorance.  Matter  seems  to  us  one  of 
the  most  famihar  of  all  things,  and  it  is  precisely  the 
scientist  who  has  forced  upon  us  our  ignorance  of  its 
ultimate  structure.  Not  so  long  ago  it  was  the  atoms 
which  seemed  to  mark  the  final  Hmit  to  which  the 
analysis  of  matter  could  go.  These  atoms  were,  as 
every  one  knows,  almost  inconceivably  minute.  But 
we  have  passed  far  beyond  that  stage,  and  it  is 
now  held  that  the  atom  is  itself  a  very  complex  body 
resembling  the  solar  system  in  miniature,  and  con- 
sisting of  corpuscles  to  which  the  name  of  electrons 
has  been  given.  What  these  corpuscles  are  we  do  not 
know ;  some  consider  them  to  be  electric  charges, 
hence  the  name  electron  has  been  chosen  to  designate 


Why  I  cannot  be  a  Materialist  47 

them.  Matter  has  been  explained  as  a  strain  or  knot 
in  the  ether,  but  what  ether  is  remains  unknown,  and, 
even  if  its  constitution  were  to  be  satisfactorily  de- 
fined, we  should  only  have  pushed  our  problem  a  step 
further  back  to  explain  and  account  for  the  elements 
of  which  it  is  composed.  As  Mr.  Whetham  says  in  his 
work,  The  Recent  Development  of  Physical  Science^ 
at  the  end  of  his  chapter  on  "  Atoms  and  Ether  "  : 
**  The  ultimate  explanation  of  the  simplest  fact  re- 
mains, apparently  for  ever,  unattainable."  It  is  well 
to  bring  out  forcibly  this  fact  that  the  materialist 
finds  his  explanation  of  the  universe  in  something 
which  is  at  present  itself  inexplicable.  This  is  no  cavil 
of  theologians  ;  it  is  the  last  word  of  physical  science. 
Moreover,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  energy  in  the 
universe  ?  The  energy  required  for  the  work  that 
goes  on  even  in  our  own  small  planet  is  tremendous 
in  amount,  and  it  baffles  all  thought  when  we  take 
into  account  aU  the  worlds  of  space.  Is  force  a 
property  of  matter,  or  is  it  something  that  exists 
alongside  of  it,  or  is  matter,  perhaps,  only  a  form  of 
force  ?  It  is  easy  enough  to  build  up  glib  theories 
by  conjuring  with  matter  and  motion,  and  we  have 
a  right  to  ask  the  materialist  what  account  he  can 
give  of  those  factors  to  which  everything  in  his  system 
is  reduced. 

I  pass  on,  however,  to  other  difficulties  which  are, 
perhaps,  even  more  cogent.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy. 


48    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

It  is  quite  true,  as  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  has  reminded  us, 
that  possibly  unknown  forms  of  energy  exist,  and  the 
theory  might  have  to  be  modified  if  these  were  dis- 
covered. Still,  we  may  take  it  as  at  present  holding 
the  field,  and  as,  for  our  purpose,  true.  Now  it  has 
often  been  pointed  out  that  we  cannot  account  for 
the  production  of  thought  on  materiahstic  principles 
if  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  is  true.  This 
law  assures  us  that  the  total  stock  of  energy  in  the 
physical  universe  remains  the  same.  For  if,  as  a 
materialist  has  told  us,  the  brain  secretes  thought,  this 
physical  process  ought  to  involve  a  transformation  of 
energy  into  thought,  and  the  consequent  reduction  of 
the  quantity  of  other  forms  of  energy.  But  the  truth 
is  that  the  energy  remains  the  same,  and  the  thought 
thus  produced  is  an  additional  product.  This  means 
that  new  creations  are  going  on  all  the  time.  But 
these  cannot  be  the  creations  of  new  physical  energy, 
inasmuch  as  that  would  conflict  with  the  law  of  the 
conservation  of  energy.  It  may  be  worth  while  to 
give  here  a  quotation  from  Du  Bois- Raymond  :  "  The 
sum  total  of  energy  remains  constantly  the  same. 
More  or  less  than  is  determined  by  this  law  cannot 
happen  in  the  material  universe ;  the  mechanical 
cause  expends  itself  entirely  in  mechanical  operations. 
Thus  the  intellectual  occurrences  which  accompany 
the  material  occurrences  in  the  brain  are  without  an 
adequate  cause  as  contemplated  by  our  under- 
standing.'* 


Why  I  cannot  be  a  Materialist  49 

But  not  only  does  the  derivation  of  thought  from 
a  material  source  contradict  the  doctrine  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy,  but  it  is  a  process  in  itself  unthink- 
able. If  it  is  difficult  to  refute  the  statement  that 
"  thought  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  brain  as 
the  gall  to  the  liver,"  it  is  difficult  simply  because  the 
proposition  is  absurd.  It  is  not  possible  to  conceive 
the  transition  from  matter  to  thought.  To  say  that 
the  brain  secretes  thought  is  not  profound  or  even 
clever ;  it  is  just  unmeaning,  as  any  one  who  really 
thinks  can  readily  see  for  himself.  That  any  arrange- 
ment or  rearrangement  of  particles  of  matter,  even 
sentient  and  highly  organised  matter  hke  the  brain, 
could  produce  thought  is  not  merely  a  pure  fancy, 
and  wildly  fantastic  at  that,  but  utterly  inconceivable. 

This  is  freely  confessed  by  some  of  the  ablest  scien- 
tists who  have  written  upon  the  subject.  For  example, 
Professor  Chfford  says  :  "  The  two  things  are  on  two 
utterly  different  platforms  ;  the  physical  facts  go  along 
by  themselves,  and  the  mental  facts  go  along  by 
themselves."  How  can  we  imagine  that  the  mere 
motions  of  particles  of  matter,  even  matter  so  en- 
dowed with  sensitiveness  as  the  brain,  could  produce 
thought  ?  The  two  things  are  entirely  incommeasur- 
able ;  there  is  no  common  factor  to  bind  them  to- 
gether. 

It  is  also  impossible  to  account,  on  materialistic 
principles,  for  even  the  most  rudimentary  form  of 
consciousness.    Kant  truly  said  that  materialism  was 


50    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

shattered  on  the  humblest  worm.  The  imagination 
is  utterly  baffled  at  the  task  of  explaining  how  the 
chasm  is  to  be  spanned  which  lies  between  dead 
matter  and  living  consciousness.  It  is  well  known 
that,  confronted  by  tliis  difficulty,  some  have  modified 
materialism  in  such  a  way  as  to  endow  all  matter, 
even  the  very  atoms,  with  intellectual  and  emotional 
as  well  as  with  physical  characteristics.  We  are 
familiar  with  the  theory  that  matter  and  mind  are 
only  the  same  thing  with  two  faces ;  and  Haeckel's 
conjectures  as  to  atoms  with  souls  are  put  forward  as 
the  last  word  of  science.  When  we  read  that  matter 
and  ether  "  are  endowed  with  sensation  and  will," 
that  they  "  experience  an  inclination  for  condensa- 
tion, a  disHke  of  strain  ;  they  strive  after  the  one  and 
struggle  against  the  other,"  we  are  not  surprised  that 
Sir  Oliver  Lodge  should  say,  *'  My  desire  is  to  criticise 
politely,  and  hence  I  refrain  from  criticising  this  sen- 
tence as  a  physicist  should."  It  is  quite  easy  to  get 
emotion  and  intellect  out  of  atoms  if  we  have  begun 
by  putting  them  in  ;  but  to  degrade  the  sacred  name 
of  science  to  cover  grotesque  metaphysics  of  this  order 
is  not  simply  cidpable  distortion  of  the  facts,  but  it 
gives  to  matter  a  new  and  wholly  illegitimate  meaning. 
Another  objection  is  that  materialism  cannot  account 
for  our  conviction  of  personal  identity.  The  matter 
of  our  bodies  is  in  constant  flux.  Physically  speaking, 
we  are  not  the  same  thing  from  one  moment  to  another. 
Within  a  certain  period  it  may  well  happen  that  there 


Why  I  cannot  be  a  Materialist  51 

is  not  a  single  particle  in  our  body  which  was  there 
when  the  period  began.  We  ought,  then,  if  material- 
ism were  true,  to  be  entirely  different  personalities 
from  what  we  were  previously.  But  if  there  is  one 
thing  of  which  we  are  all  convinced  it  is  our  personal 
identity  through  all  physical  change.  We  accept 
responsibility  for  the  acts  of  the  man  who  bore  our 
name  ten  years  ago,  and  no  one  would  think  of  urging 
that  the  physical  transformation  that  had  occurred 
in  the  interv'^al  snapped  the  tie  which  boimd  the 
present  to  the  past. 

But  there  is  a  difficulty  more  fundamental  than  any 
other.  Not  only  are  we  ignorant  of  what  matter  is, 
but  we  do  not  even  know  that  matter  exists  at  all. 
No  doubt  in  our  ordinary  life  we  act  on  the  behef 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  an  external  world,  and 
especially  that  matter  exists  in  the  form  of  our  own 
bodies.  But  the  only  thing  that  we  know  with  the 
absolute  certainty  of  inunediate  knowledge  is  our  own 
existence,  and  our  existence  not  primarily  on  the 
physical,  but  on  the  mental  side.  All  of  which  we  are 
immediately  aware  is  a  stream  of  sensations  within 
our  consciousness.  The  mind  sets  to  work  on  these 
sensations,  sorts  and  classifies  them,  and  draws  con- 
clusions from  them.  The  existence  of  matter  is  not, 
that  is  to  say,  a  fact  of  inmiediate  consciousness, 
although  to  the  unreflective  instinct  of  the  plain  man 
it  may  seem  to  be  so ;  it  is  an  inference  from  the 
sense-perceptions. 


5  2    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

It  is  quite  conceivable  that  our  physical  existence 
and  our  physical  environment  may  be  an  illusion,  a 
dream  from  which  we  shall  one  day  awake.  But 
though  every  thought  we  have  be  false,  a  thinking 
mind  is  necessary  to  think  them ;  and  if  our  belief 
in  a  physical  universe  be  but  a  dream,  there  must  be 
a  mind  to  dream  it.  A  wild  imagination,  it  may  be 
said,  that  matter  is  an  illusion.  Yes,  but  not  half 
so  wild  or  incredible  as  the  beUef  that  nothing  exists 
but  matter.  For  we  know  nothing  of  matter  except 
through  mind.  As  the  varied  phenomena  of  the 
universe  press  in  upon  us,  and  pass  through  the  organs 
of  sense  to  the  brain,  it  is  the  mind  which  uses  the 
brain  as  its  instrument,  which  understands  their  mean- 
ing and  unifies  them  into  a  coherent  whole. 

Were  it  not  for  the  mind  the  sensations  which  beat 
upon  the  shore  of  consciousness  would  be  a  wild  and 
tumultuous  crowd  without  meaning  or  coherence.  It 
is  the  mind  that  out  of  these  innumerable  experiences 
extracts  a  meaning  and  builds  them  up  into  a  definite 
and  connected  system.  Perhaps  many  of  my  readers 
have  had  the  thought  which  I  sometimes  used  to  have 
as  a  child,  that  the  whole  of  my  Hfe  was  a  dream  and 
that  I  might  any  moment  wake  to  reality.  This  may 
be  improbable  in  the  highest  degree,  but,  after  all,  it 
is  not  inconceivable  in  the  abstract.  But  what  would 
be  inconceivable  would  be  that  there  should  be  a 
dream  in  which  the  unreal  world  seemed  real  unless 
there  was  a  mind  to  dream  it.    There  can  be  no  illu- 


Why  I  cannot  be  a  Materialist  53 

sion  unless  there  is  a  mind  to  be  the  victim  of  it. 
Professor  Huxley,  after  quoting  Berkeley's  argument 
that  matter  and  motion  are  known  to  us  only  as  forms 
of  consciousness,  and  that  the  existence  of  a  state  of 
consciousness  apart  from  a  thinking  mind  is  a  contra- 
diction in  terms,  proceeds  :  "I  conceive  that  this 
reasoning  is  irrefragable.  And,  therefore,  if  I  were 
obliged  to  choose  between  absolute  materialism  and 
ideaUsm,  I  should  feel  compelled  to  accept  the  latter 
alternative." 

I  do  not  here  press  the  argument  from  results,  since 
I  think  that  if  a  theory  is  true  w^e  ought  to  accept  it, 
be  the  results  what  they  may.  Still,  it  is  legitimate 
to  point  out  that,  if  materiahsm  is  true,  there  is  an 
end  to  rehgion  and  morahty  in  any  real  sense  of  the 
term.  But  I  have  already  tried  to  point  out  that 
rehgion  is  likely  to  be  a  permanent  possession  of  the 
human  race  ;  and  if  that  position  is  sound,  the  in- 
compatibiUty  of  rehgion  and  materiahsm  constitutes 
for  us  a  further  proof  that  materiahsm  is  false. 

It  has  often  been  urged  against  rehgion  that  it  has 
led  men  to  follow  strange  fancies  and  degrade  them- 
selves by  grovelhng  superstition.  Too  often  the 
charge  has  not  been  without  its  justification,  but  the 
history  of  materiahsm — especially  in  some  of  its  later 
developments — proves  that  fanatical  attachment  to 
obsolete  superstition  is  not  the  monopoly  of  rehgious 
people.  And  over  against  this  materiahsm,  which 
lays  on  matter  a  task  it  can  never  achieve,  I  con- 


54    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

fidently  set  the  spiritual  and  theistic  view  of  the 
universe.  It  would  ill  become  a  believer  in  God  to 
speak  with  contempt  of  the  material  worid,  which 
bears  the  marks  of  His  handiwork,  and  is  the  stage 
appointed  by  Him  for  our  training.  Yet  the  supreme 
thing  in  the  universe  is  not  matter,  but  spirit,  and  it 
is  for  the  sake  of  spirit  that  matter  ultimately  exists. 
It  is  no  far-away  God  in  whom  the  Christian  believes, 
who  created  the  universe  as  a  machine,  and  started  it 
on  its  independent  way.  He  is  rather  the  infinite  and 
eternal  Spirit,  present  and  active  in  every  part  of  His 
vast  creation,  the  strong  Power  in  whose  arms  it  rests, 
the  vital  energy  that  quickens  its  every  movement. 
He  is  the  aU-wise  controller  of  its  destinies,  who  weaves 
into  His  great  harmonious  purpose  all  the  tangled 
threads  of  its  clashing  impulses.  He  is  the  Infinite 
Being  who  transcends  the  hmits  of  time  and  space. 
And  yet  in  Him  the  deepest  religious  instincts  are 
satisfied,  for  we  are  the  children  on  whom  He  lavishes 
His  love,  made  in  His  image  to  be  His  intimate  com- 
panions for  evermore.  Into  the  vaUdity  of  this  belief 
it  will  be  our  next  task  to  inquire* 


CHAPTER  IV 
IS   THERE   A   GOD  ? 

WE  may  take  it  as  made  good  by  our  earlier  dis- 
cussion that  man  has  everywhere  developed 
a  religion.  But  this  very  fact  forces  upon  us  the 
probability  that  Religion  is  not  an  illusion.  We  have 
been  taught  to  recognise  the  importance  played  in 
development  by  environment.  Life  is  one  long  pro- 
cess of  interaction  between  organism  and  environ, 
ment.  If,  then,  we  find  everywhere  in  human  history 
the  presence  of  religion,  the  meaning  of  this  fact  is 
that  there  must  be  a  spiritual  universe.  To  deny  its 
existence  is  to  except  religion  from  the  great  law  of 
correspondence  to  environment  by  denying  that  the 
environment  really  exists.  Moreover,  when  we  re- 
member that  religion  has  played  perhaps  the  most 
important  part  in  human  development  we  are  con- 
fronted with  this  problem  :  How  are  we  to  understand 
that  a  faculty  of  such  potent  and  far-reaching  influence 
should  have  continued  to  exist  in  the  absence  of  such 
a  spiritual  universe  ?  Finding  no  response,  would  it 
not  have  quickly  ceased  to  exist  ? 

SS 


5 6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

This  consideration  is  powerfully  reinforced  by 
another,  which  is,  that,  in  view  of  the  rationality  which 
is  man's  outstanding  distinction,  what  has  proved 
one  of  the  main  forces  in  his  history  should  have 
rested  upon  an  illusion.  The  precise  forms  which 
reUgion  has  assumed  are  comparatively  unimportant 
for  our  question.  The  crucial  point  is  that  they  all 
imply  the  existence  of  unknown  powers  with  whom 
man  may  have  relations.  That  he  should  have 
wrongly  conceived  the  character  of  these  powers  is 
unimportant,  for  that  is  a  mere  matter  of  interpreta- 
tion. What  is  vital  is  that  there  was  a  fact  to  be 
interpreted,  not  that  he  put  this  or  that  construction 
upon  it.  Why  should  the  very  constitution  of  his 
nature  drive  him  thus  outside  himself  to  seek  relations 
with  higher  powers  if  these  higher  powers  were  an 
empty  figment  ?  But  if  the  source  from  which  man 
drew  his  being  planted  deep  within  him  his  longing 
for  the  Eternal  and  the  Unseen,  then  this  stupendous 
fact  receives  an  adequate  explanation.  Deny  the 
existence  of  the  Unseen  Powers,  and  the  most  con- 
spicuous feature  in  the  history  of  mankind  becomes 
an  insoluble  mystery. 

So  far  what  I  have  said  does  not  bring  us  to  the 
existence  of  God,  but  simply  to  the  assertion  that 
there  is  a  spiritual  universe  with  which  man  may 
come  into  fellowship.  It  would  harmonise  with  the 
existence  of  many  gods  as  well  as  with  the  existence 
of  one.    But  the  modem  world  in  general  has  agreed 


Is  there  a  God?  57 

that  of  the  two  alternatives  we  must  accept  a  belief 
in  one  God  and  not  in  many.  It  is  true  that  some 
recent  philosophers  have  argued  for  pluralism  rather 
than  for  imity  on  the  ground  that  it  is  much  easier 
thus  to  account  for  the  existence  of  evil  and  pain 
without  reflecting  on  the  goodness  and  the  love  of 
God.  I  do  not  linger  on  this,  however,  since  the 
difficulties  with  which  it  is  encumbered  seem  to  out- 
weigh the  advantages  that  it  offers.  The  question, 
therefore,  for  us  is  whether  there  is  a  God  or  not. 

I  need  not  dwell  on  its  importance.  It  is  clear  to 
all  that  on  this  our  Christianity  depends  for  its  very 
Hfe,  and  any  one  who  knows  what  Christianity  has 
been  in  the  life  of  the  individual  and  of  the  race  will 
confess  how  great  its  importance  is.  It  might  have 
been  thought  that  in  a  matter  so  vital  if  there  were  a 
God  He  could  not  have  left  us  in  such  uncertainty  that 
arguments  for  His  existence  would  be  required.  But 
uncertainty  is  necessary  to  the  being  of  faith,  for  if 
there  were  no  uncertainty,  faith  would  give  place  to 
knowledge.  And  after  all  our  argument  we  do  not 
reach  demonstration,  but  only  a  high  degree  of  prob- 
ability ;  so  that  behef  in  the  existence  of  God  re- 
mains to  the  last  an  act  of  faith.  It  is  well  to  make 
this  clear  at  the  outset,  since  some  might  expect  that 
the  proofs  should  be  as  cogent  as  those  used  in  mathe- 
matical demonstration. 

There  are  several  lines  of  argument  by  which 
philosophers  and  theologians  have  sought  to  establish 


5  8    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  existence  of  God.  Several  of  these  so-called  proofs 
have  lost  the  force  that  they  once  seemed  to  possess, 
and  they  are  rather  too  intricate  and  difficult  to  be 
fitly  dealt  with  in  such  a  volume  as  this.  For  ex- 
ample, when  we  consider  the  world  around  us,  we  are 
struck  by  the  fact  that  all  the  phenomena  we  see  are 
the  effects  of  some  cause  or  causes.  But  these  causes 
are  themselves  the  effects  of  previous  causes,  and  so 
we  can  carry  back  the  series  of  causes  into  the  far 
distant  past.  Such  is  the  world  as  we  know  it,  and 
within  it  we  cannot  escape  from  this  chain  of  cause 
and  effect.  But  we  cannot  well  conceive  that  this 
series  should  stretch  back  for  ever.  It  is  a  logical 
necessity  by  which  we  think  of  a  First  Cause — a  cause, 
therefore,  not  itself  the  effect  of  a  preceding  cause. 
But  though  I  beheve  this  argument  to  be  vahd,  I  do 
not  lay  stress  on  it  here,  because  abstruse  questions 
are  raised  as  to  the  idea  of  causahty,  on  which  it 
would  be  profitless  to  enter ;  and  because,  while  it 
yields  to  us  a  First  Cause,  it  has  nothing  to  tell  us  of 
its  character.  And  theism,  as  we  understand  it,  has 
very  definite  statements  to  make  on  this  point.  Nor 
can  it  be  denied  that  we  find  the  conception  of  an 
unoriginated  First  Cause  very  difficult  to  grasp. 

Undoubtedly  the  argument  from  design,  as  it  is 
commonly  called,  is  the  one  most  fitted  to  impress 
and  convince  the  average  mind.  We  see  ever5rwhere 
in  Nature  contrivances,  adjustments,  adaptations 
which  seem  to  be  the  outcome  of  deliberate  design. 


Is  there  a  God?  59 

No  one  who  has  ever  considered  his  own  body  can  fail 
to  be  filled  with  wonder  at  the  marvels  of  it.  If  we 
think  of  the  structure  of  the  ear  or  the  eye,  even  apart 
from  any  special  investigation,  we  cannot  but  be 
astonished  at  it.  But  our  astonishment  passes  into 
something  like  awe  when  we  change  our  vague  im- 
pression into  exact  knowledge.  Think  of  the  eye  with 
its  gift  of  adjustment  for  near  or  distant  view,  or  for 
greater  or  less  degree  of  light,  and  especially  of  the 
structure  of  the  retina,  on  which  we  receive  the  im- 
pression of  all  the  objects  in  our  field  of  view.  The 
retina,  though  of  great  thinness,  in  the  ninth  of  its 
ten  layers  contains  more  than  three  million  cones  and 
thirty  million  rods.  Now,  we  often  see  quoted  Helm- 
holtz's  criticisms  on  the  eye  considered  as  an  optical 
instrument,  but  it  is  frequently  forgotten  that  Helm- 
holtz  went  on  to  say  that  for  practical  purposes  the 
eye  was  aU  the  better  for  these  theoretical  imperfections. 
The  ear  consists  of  numerous  parts,  one  of  which, 
the  cochlea,  contains  four  thousand  arches.  Yet  these 
structures,  so  complex  and  so  minute,  need  for  their 
proper  working  that  they  should  be  adjusted  to  the 
luminiferous  ether  and  the  waves  of  air,  that  one 
may  paint  a  true  picture  on  the  retina,  and  the  other 
rightly  convey  the  sounds  to  the  organ  of  hearing. 
Thus  it  is  not  the  mere  internal  adjustment  of  the 
parts  to  each  other,  but  of  the  organ  itself  to  the 
medium  by  which  the  impressions  are  conveyed.  So 
exquisitely  fitted  is  the  eaj  for  its  function  that  it 


6o    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

picks  out  the  many  sounds  which  continually  strike 
upon  it  with  ease  and  certainty,  although  these  sounds 
are  brought  to  it  by  innumerable  air  waves,  clashing 
\vith  each  other  in  what  might  seem  inextricable  con- 
fusion. Yet  with  such  precision  does  it  discriminate, 
that  a  mistake  in  the  interpretation  of  a  sound  is  very 
rare.  But  there  is  a  further  adjustment  which  must 
be  taken  into  account.  In  many  cases  we  have  a 
striking  indication  of  adjustment,  not  merely  in  the 
medium  through  which  the  impression  comes,  but  in 
the  originating  cause.  Thus  how  exquisitely  the 
human  voice  is  adapted  to  the  human  ear.  Were  it 
not  for  this  adjustment  language  would  be  impossible. 
So  fine  is  the  sense  of  hearing  that  we  not  only  inter- 
pret the  words  uttered,  but  can  differentiate  between 
the  same  words  as  spoken  by  different  people  ;  to  such 
a  degree  of  accuracy,  indeed,  that  we  can  often  identify 
people  by  this  sense  alone,  knowing  them,  as  we  say, 
by  their  voice.  But  there  is  a  still  further  adjustment 
which  has  not  yet  been  touched  upon,  but  is,  in  a 
sense,  the  most  wonderful  of  all.  It  is  that  by  which 
the  brain  receives  intelligence  of  and  interprets  the 
impressions  made  on  the  organs  of  sense.  So  in- 
fallibly do  the  instruments  set  apart  for  this  purpose 
do  their  work,  that  every  sight  or  sound  registered 
on  eye  or  ear  is  instantaneously  transmitted  to  the 
brain,  and  through  it  is  taken  up  into  our  conscious- 
ness. And  the  brain  is  so  fitted  for  its  work  that, 
though  it  receives  innumerable  impressions  at  every 


Is  there  a  God?  6i 

moment,  impressions  of  sight  and  sound  and  touch, 
it  is  not  confused  by  them,  but,  without  hesitation  or 
delay,  interprets  each  aright  and  acts  accordingly. 
And  all  this  is  but  a  small  part  of  the  evidences  of 
design  furnished  by  a  single  human  body.  But  even 
if  we  were  to  examine  exhaustively  the  whole  body, 
we  should  but  have  touched  a  fringe  of  the  argument 
derived  from  the  survey  of  the  whole  universe  as  we 
see  it  before  us. . 

These  adjustments  seem  to  speak  of  purpose  on  a 
scale  so  vast,  and  betokening  an  intelligence  so  pro- 
found, as  to  suggest  very  strongly  that  they  are  due 
to  a  personal  Creator  of  the  wisest  wdsdom.  And  when 
our  view  is  widened  to  take  in  not  simply  our  own 
tiny  planet,  but  all  the  vast  worlds  of  space,  the  im- 
pression not  only  of  intelligence,  but  of  stupendous 
power,  becomes  almost  irresistible. 

It  is  well  known,  however,  that  it  is  precisely  this 
very  impressive  argument  from  design  which  has  been 
thought  to  be  most  severely  hit  by  modem  science. 
And  before  approaching  this  there  is  another  objec- 
tion of  a  general  character  that  must  not  be  lost  sight 
of.  The  adjustment  in  certain  cases  seems  to  suggest 
a  malevolent  rather  than  a  beneficent  design.  When 
the  sporting  man  praised  the  creative  wisdom  which 
had  tilted  the  nostrils  of  the  bulldog  at  such  an  angle 
that  he  could  hold  on  to  the  bull  and  still  breathe 
without  inconvenience,  it  is  plain  that  had  the  bull 
been  capable  of  giving  his  opinion  he  would  have 


62    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

found  it  difficult  to  see  in  the  arrangement  the  evi- 
dence of  benevolent  design.  It  is,  of  course,  one  of 
the  difficulties  under  which  the  old-fashioned  doctrine 
of  special  creation  labours,  that  there  are  many  things 
in  Nature  which  it  is  hard  to  regard  as  deHberately 
created,  and  there  are  some  adjustments  which  we 
should  not  have  expected  from  a  benevolent  designer. 
It  is  worth  while  pointing  out  at  this  stage  that  theism 
is  in  no  way  committed  to  the  theory  of  special  crea- 
tion. 

The  old  theory  of  special  creation,  apart  from  other 
weaknesses,  had  this,  which  from  a  theological  point 
of  view  was  a  sahent  defect — that  it  involved  a  half 
Deistic  conception  of  the  relation  of  God  to  Nature. 
The  Divine  activity  was  confined  to  these  creative 
moments,  and  thus  always  assumed  the  appearance 
of  an  interference  with  the  normal  course  of  things. 
But,  as  has  been  well  pointed  oat,  occasional  presence 
implies  habitual  absence,  and  the  absenteeism  of  the 
Creator  from  His  creation  was  a  real  weakness  in  the 
theory.  The  most  religious,  not  to  say  scriptural, 
attitude  is  surely  that  which  postulates  the  abiding 
presence  and  activity  of  God  within  His  own  universe. 
From  that  point  of  view  the  mode  of  creation  adopted 
would  be  decided  by  its  harmony  with  the  character 
of  God  and  His  methods  of  working  so  far  as  we  are 
able  to  discern  them.  And  which  hypothesis  seems  to 
reason — which  is  a  God-given  faculty — the  most  fit 
it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say. 


Is  there  a  God?  ^'^ 

The  Darwinian  theory  of  Natural  Selection  is  often 
said  to  have  discredited  the  argument  from  design. 
For  the  sake  of  those  who  may  not  be  famihar  with 
the  theory  I  will  give  a  brief  sketch  of  it.  Nature  is 
far  more  prolific  in  the  production  of  Hves  than  of 
food  to  support  them.  Hence,  as  there  is  not  enough 
for  aU,  the  strong  survive,  while  the  weak  go  to  the 
wall.  In  this  struggle  for  existence  the  fittest  survive 
and  the  unfit  are  eliminated.  The  course  of  develop- 
ment has  been  largely  governed  by  this  principle  of 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  in  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence. What  constitutes  fitness  is  often  some  slight 
variation  which  gives  a  particular  organism  an  advan- 
tage over  others  of  its  kind.  It  may  consist  in  greater 
fleetness,  by  which  it  can  better  secure  its  prey  or  out- 
distance its  pursuers  ;  or  it  may  be  some  difference 
in  tint,  by  which  it  approximates  more  closely  to  its 
surroundings,  and  thus  more  successfully  eludes  the 
notice  of  its  enemies.  But,  whatever  it  be,  the  varia- 
tion gives  an  advantage  in  the  struggle,  and  the 
organism  hands  it  on  to  its  descendants,  which,  in 
course  of  time,  since  they  are  the  fittest,  alone  survive, 
the  less  favoured  members  of  the  class  being  ehminated 
as  unfit.  Now,  the  bearing  of  this  theory  on  the  argu- 
ment from  design  is  as  follows  :  That  argument  points 
to  exquisite  adaptations  as  given  to  the  organism  to 
enable  it  to  Hve  its  hfe  in  harmony  with  its  environ- 
ment. The  theory  of  natural  selection,  on  the  other 
hand,  says  :    The  organism  survives  in  the  struggle 


64    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

because  it  happens  to  possess  some  feature  which 
gives  it  the  advantage  over  other  members  of  its  class 
which  do  not  possess  it,  and  its  possession  is  due  to  a 
fortunate  variation  from  the  common  condition.  Only 
those  that  thus  correspond  more  and  more  closely  to 
their  environment  ultimately  survive  ;  so  that  at  last, 
by  successive  approximations  and  weeding  out  of  the 
unfit,  the  existing  organism  is  endowed  with  a  large 
number  of  features  fitted  to  the  environment  in  which 
it  Uves.  In  this  case  it  would  seem,  at  first  sight,  as 
though  no  directive  purpose  could  be  discerned  in 
the  adaptations.  It  is  a  matter  of  accident  whether 
the  lucky  variation  is  produced  at  all,  and,  when  pro- 
duced, it  is  the  competitive  process  that  favours  its 
preservation,  not  inteUigent  design.  The  argument 
from  design,  in  other  words,  said  :  These  adaptations 
are  due  to  the  action  of  intelligence,  which  thus  fitted 
the  organism  to  respond  to  its  environment.  The 
theory  of  Natural  Selection,  on  the  contrary,  replies 
that  the  possession  of  these  quahties  which  were 
better  adapted  to  the  environment  secured  the 
triumph  of  the  lucky  possessor  ;  and  since  all  the 
organisms  of  the  same  species  that  did  not  possess 
them  were  ultimately  killed  off  in  the  course  of  the 
struggle,  the  quahties  themselves  survived. 

When  Darwin  first  promulgated  the  theory  it  was 
widely  felt  on  both  sides  that,  if  true,  it  demohshed 
the  argument  from  design.  Many  theologians  accord- 
ingly denied  that  it  was  true,  while  many  followers 


Is  there  a  Godf  65 

of  Darwin  asserted  that  the  chief  theistic  proof  had 
received  its  death-blow.  We  are  somewhat  wiser  now. 
It  does  not  fall  within  my  plan  to  discuss  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  the  development  theory  in  general,  or 
Darwinism  in  particular.  It  seems  to  me,  looking  at 
the  matter  as  a  layman,  that  it  is  true,  and  that  Natural 
Selection  has  been  a  real  force.  In  any  case,  I  am 
content  to  argue  on  that  assumption.  But  we  must 
observe  the  Hmitations  of  Natural  Selection.  In  the 
first  place,  it  cannot  produce  favourable  variations. 
It  can  only  preserve  them  when  they  are  produced. 
Till  variations  are  produced.  Nature  has  no  reason 
for  selecting  one  more  than  another  to  survive  ;  and 
the  development  advances  only  when  some  advan- 
tageous variation  makes  its  appearance.  How,  then, 
are  we  to  account  for  the  favourable  variations  ?  It 
may  be  said  that  out  of  the  abundance  which  Nature 
produces,  variations  from  type  will  constantly  occur. 
Some  of  these  will  be  of  no  advantage  to  the  organism, 
others  will  even  handicap  it  in  its  struggle.  These 
will  perish,  but  other  variations  will  be  of  profit,  and 
Nature  will  secure  their  survival.  Nature  makes  a 
thousand  shots ;  it  will  go  hard  if  out  of  these  there 
be  not  some  lucky  hits. 

Another  limitation  is  that  Natural  Selection  can 
only  preserve  variations  that  happen  to  be  imme- 
diately favourable.  It  is  not  variations  which  will  be 
useful  to  the  organism  long  afterwards,  but  those 
that  serve  it  best  in  the  actual  conflict  in  which  it 
r 


66    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Is  engaged.  But  the  very  course  that  development 
has  taken  requires  that  variations  should  have  been 
preserved  which  would  be  of  use  only  in  the  far-distant 
future.  And  analogous  to  this  is  the  further  con- 
sideration that  in  some  cases,  in  order  to  secure  a 
certain  result  highly  favourable  to  an  organism,  a  long 
series  of  variations  has  had  to  be  produced,  many  of 
which  gave  no  immediate  advantage,  but  were  favour- 
able only  as  conducting  to  a  distant  goal.  In  other 
words,  purpose  and  prophetic  foresight  seem  to  be 
imphed  in  the  course  which  development  has  here 
taken — banking  the  successive  variations  till  the  time 
when  they  could  be  of  service. 

I  do  not  dwell  on  the  inability  of  Natural  Selection 
to  account  for  the  beauty  and  subhmity  of  the  imi- 
verse,  where  no  advantage  in  the  struggle  is  given  to 
these  quahties.  Moreover,  we  have  to  remember  that, 
while  some  theory  of  evolution  is  probably  correct, 
the  newer  evolutionists  have  moved  very  far  from 
some  of  Darwin's  most  characteristic  positions.  Much 
more  importance  is  now  assigned  to  the  inner  pro- 
perty of  change,  and  even  sudden  change,  possessed 
by  organisms.  It  is  also  now  held  that  the  stmggle 
for  existence,  so  far  from  being  the  main  condition  of 
development,  is  in  itself  a  factor  hostile  and  not 
friendly  to  survival.  It  is  further  held  that  evolution, 
so  far  from  being  a  mechanical  process,  is  due  to  a 
tendency  to  progress  which  resides  in  the  organism 
itself.    It  is  clear  that  these  changes  in  the  theory 


Is  there  a  God?  67 

oooslderably  modify  the  whole  situation.  It  \¥ouid,  no 
doubt,  be  premature,  while  the  theory  is  in  such  flux, 
to  say  precisely  how  we  are  ultimately  to  adjust  our 
ideas  to  it.  It  is,  however,  clear  already  that  the  old 
view  that  the  argument  from  design  has  been  killed 
by  Darwinism  can  be  no  longer  put  forward  with  any 
confidence. 

Finally,  I  notice  one  highly  important  considera- 
tion. It  is  that  the  process  of  evolution  has  been 
consistently  higher,  moving  from  the  lowest  and 
simplest  forms  to  the  highly  differentiated  and  com- 
plex, and  finding  its  cUmax  in  man.  Now,  Professor 
Huxley  was  obviously  right  in  saying  that  there  is 
no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why  evolution 
should  mean  development  upward  rather  than  de- 
gradation. Nor,  it  might  be  added,  why  it  should 
move  consistently  in  any  given  direction  at  all.  But 
since  it  has  consistently  meant  progress,  and  progress 
culminating  in  such  a  goal,  we  naturally  ask  how  is 
this  to  be  explained.  Let  it  be  observed  that  here 
the  question  is  not  of  the  evolution  of  a  single  type, 
but  of  the  universal  movement.  For  such  steady 
advance  toward  a  goal  demands  an  adequate  ex- 
planation. Can  we  consider  the  method  of  Natural 
Selection  taken  by  itself  such  an  explanation  ?  Ob- 
serve how  it  works  bhndly,  dependent  on  the  chance 
of  favourable  variations.  Yet  the  actual  development 
shows  us  not  blind  movement,  but  progress  to  a 
definite  end,  in  which  many  steps  had  to  be  taken 


68    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

that  conferred  no  advantage  in  the  struggle,  while 
other  paths  which  ultimately  led  nowhere  were  neg- 
lected. In  other  words,  so  far  from  the  elimination 
of  purpose  from  Nature  by  the  method  of  selection, 
the  whole  process  is  only  to  be  rationally  interpreted 
as  due  to  purpose.  It  is  only  when  we  put  intelli- 
gence, working  consciously  towards  a  given  end,  into 
the  process  of  Natural  Selection  and  Evolution  gene- 
rally, that  we  have  an  explanation  which  covers  the 
facts  to  be  explained.  Thus  the  argument  from 
design,  while  modified  by  Darwinism,  is  really  im- 
measurably strengthened  by  it,  for  we  discover 
purpose  now,  not  merely  in  individual  adjustments, 
but  in  the  whole  cosmic  process.  The  old  argument 
from  design  could  hardly  see  the  wood  for  the  trees ; 
the  new  argument  takes  a  vaster  sweep  and  emphasises 
the  whole  evolutionary  movement  as  exhibiting  con- 
scious design. 

I  pass  on  to  refer  to  the  veto  of  agnosticism.  By 
this  is  meant  the  view  that  it  is  impossible  to  affirm 
anything  with  reference  to  the  existence  of  a  God  or 
a  future  Hfe,  since  these  things  he,  and  must  He,  be- 
yond our  knowledge  in  the  sphere  of  the  Unloiowable. 
It  will  be  allowed  that  of  this  position  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  was  the  most  distinguished  and  authoritative 
exponent.  Although  he  regarded  the  Power  that 
works  in  the  Universe  as  Unknowable,  he  contrived 
to  teU  us  a  great  deal  about  it.  He  spoke  of  it  as  "  an 
inscrutable  existence,  everywhere  manifested,  to  which 


Is  there  a  Godf  69 

we  can  neither  find  nor  conceive  beginning  or  end," 
as  "an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy  from  which  all 
things  proceed."  He  described  it  as  a  force  analogous 
to  our  own  will,  infinite,  eternal,  omnipresent.  He 
says  that  it  "stands  towards  our  general  conception 
of  things,  substantially  as  does  the  Creative  Power 
asserted  by  theology."  But  he  goes  even  further, 
and  tells  us  that  since  the  energy  which  works  in  the 
Universe  wells  up  in  the  form  of  consciousness  in  our- 
selves, this  gives  a  spiritual  rather  than  a  material 
aspect  to  the  Universe.  With  all  this  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  John  Fiske,  a  distinguished  disciple  of 
Spencer,  definitely  advanced  to  the  theistic  position. 
For  with  all  these  admissions  Mr.  Spencer  himself  was 
not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  halted,  however, 
at  the  crucial  point,  the  attribution  of  personality  to 
this  Eternal  Energy.  He  did  not  deny  it ;  his  doc- 
trine was  not  "  anything  more  than  silent  with  respect 
to  personality."  But  whUe  he  left  it  in  suspense,  he 
insisted  that  if  personality  were  not  affirmed  of  it,  we 
must  afiirm  something  higher  and  not  something  lower 
than  personality.  We  need  have  no  quarrel  with  that 
if,  at  any  rate,  this  "  something  higher "  include 
self-consciousness. 

The  great  objection  which  is  urged  against  the  doc- 
trine of  a  personal  God  is  that  personality  implies 
limitation.  To  this  Lotze  seems  to  have  given  the 
true  answer.  We  argue  that  personality  implies 
limitation,  because  we  argue  from  personality  as  we 


70    Christianity :  its  Nature  afid  its  Truth 

possess  it.  But  really  the  limitation,  of  which  we  are 
conscious,  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that  we  possess 
personality,  but  that  we  possess  it  so  imperfectly. 
It  is  only  the  Absolute  who  possesses  perfect  person- 
ality. The  Eternal  Energy,  Mr.  Spencer  tells  us,  wells 
up  within  us  in  the  form  of  consciousness.  But  how 
thin  at  any  given  moment  is  the  stream  of  conscious- 
ness !  If  we  analyse  its  contents,  how  little  they 
seem ! 

It  is  only  a  small  part  of  our  actual  mental  posses- 
sion of  which  at  any  given  moment  we  are  aware. 
In  the  field  of  consciousness  itself  there  is  the  focal 
point  on  which  our  attention  is  acutely  centred. 
Shading  off  from  that  we  have  objects  within  the  field 
of  consciousness  of  which  we  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
aware,  but  to  which  our  attention  is  only  slightly 
directed.  There  are  other  things  which  are  just  in 
the  margin  of  consciousness,  but  to  which  we  are  not 
conscious  of  paying  any  regard.  But  when  all  these 
things  are  put  together,  how  small  they  are  compared 
with  the  vast  mass  of  our  experience  and  knowledge 
that  does  not  present  itself  to  us  as  an  object  of  con- 
sciousness at  all.  Buned  below  the  surface  in  the 
dim  recesses  of  the  mind  is  all  that  we  have  ever 
learnt,  or  seen,  or  heard,  all  the  experiences  through 
which  we  have  passed,  much  that  we  have  not  thought 
of  for  many  years,  and  perhaps  may  never  think  of  in 
this  world,  but  still  there,  ready  to  be  called  up  into 
consciousness  by  something   that  recalls  it   to  our 


Ts  there  a  God?  JX 

memory,  or  brought  above  the  threshold  by  driving 
a  shaft  into  it  through  such  methods  as  crystal-gazing 
or  h5^notism.  We  are  only  beginning  to  apprehend 
how  important  for  each  of  us  may  be  this  hfe  that 
goes  on  in  the  subterranean  regions  of  our  personahty. 
How  large  a  part  it  plays  in  our  actual  life  is 
clearly  seen  in  our  automatic  actions.  There  are  many 
things  we  can  do  well  till  we  think  of  them.  As  soon 
as  we  begin  to  reflect  how  we  are  doing  them,  we 
bungle  them;  they  must  be  done  automatically  or 
there  is  hkely  to  be  a  shp.  The  accomphshed  pianist 
does  not  think  about  the  notes  he  is  to  strike,  his 
fingers  will  go  perfectly  so  long  as  they  are  left  to 
themselves.  I  had  no  idea  how  I  washed  my  hands 
till  I  had  an  attack  of  rheumatism,  which  forced  the 
action  out  of  the  sub-conscious  into  the  conscious 
domain.  My  hands  knew  perfectly  well  how  they 
washed  themselves.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  a  merciful 
provision  this  is  which  saves  our  feeble  consciousness 
from  being  burdened  with  the  load  of  so  much  in  hfe. 
Had  we  to  think  of  every  step  we  took,  how  we  were 
to  take  it ;  of  every  bit  of  food  we  put  into  our  mouths, 
exactly  how  we  were  to  put  it  there ;  of  every  word 
we  read,  how  it  was  spelt  and  identified  ;  and  of  every 
other  action  that  we  now  perform  automatically,  how 
we  ought  to  do  it,  our  mind  would  be  crowded  to  dis- 
traction with  these  competing  elements,  reason  would 
snap  under  the  intolerable  strain,  and  the  world  would 
soon  be  turned  into  a  raving  Bedlam.    How  much  we 


72    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

have  still  to  leam  about  this  sub-conscious  life,  of  the 
processes  that  go  on  within  it,  its  influence  on  our 
character  and  conduct,  the  Unk  it  may  form  for  us  with 
other  persons  and  with  God  we,  as  yet,  scarcely  dream. 
While,  then,  we  have  a  firm  hold  of  personaUty,  we 
have  only  imperfect  possession  of  it.  But  we  can  con- 
ceive of  a  personality  in  which  there  should  be  no 
region  of  the  sub-conscious  or  unconscious  at  all, 
where  past  and  present  and  future  states  of  conscious- 
ness were  all  one,  and  all  the  elements  of  conscious- 
ness were  kept  under  strict  control  and  were  at  the 
complete  command  of  the  person.  Such  would  be 
perfect  personality,  and  it  would  not  be  marked  by 
limitation,  but  most  conspicuously  by  its  absence. 
Would  not  such  personaUty  be  worthy  of  the  "  Infinite 
and  Eternal  Energy  from  which  all  things  proceed  "  ? 
A  Force  analogous  to  our  own  will,  which  wells  up  in 
us  in  the  form  of  consciousness,  cannot  easily  be 
conceived  as  itself  without  self-consciousness.  But, 
further,  Mr.  Spencer  gives  us  warrant  for  believing 
that  the  Power  which  works  in  the  Universe  works 
for  moral  ends.  For  when  he  comes  to  construct  his 
ethical  system,  on  the  basis  of  the  theory  of  evolution, 
he  presents  us  \vith  a  morahty  which  closely  resembles 
the  ethics  of  Christianity.  So  that  we  may  claim  him 
as  substantiating  much  of  the  theistic  position, 
though  not  so  fully  as  we  could  have  wished.  What 
is  remarkable  is  that  he  has  reached  such  positive 
results  from  the  agnostic  starting-point. 


Is  there  a  Godf  73 

V/e  are  not,  however,  at  the  end  of  our  quest  when 
we  have  reached  the  result  that  the  Universe  has  a 
Creator,  or  perhaps  only  a  manipulator  of  matter,  a 
Designer  of  supreme  inteUigence  and  power.  For  we 
cannot  rest  content  with  a  Being  who  is  merely  in- 
finite Wisdom  and  Power  as  the  object  of  our  supreme 
devotion  and  worship.  We  ask  that  He  shall  be 
endowed  with  Holiness  and  Love  before  we  can  re- 
gard Him  as  fit  to  be  worshipped  by  us  as  God.  And, 
so  far,  the  argument  has  yielded  to  us  no  moral  attri- 
butes at  all.  Are  we,  then,  to  say  that  the  contempla- 
tion of  Nature  reveals  to  us  a  moral  order  ?  In  other 
words.  Is  Nature  on  the  side  of  virtue  and  against 
vice  ?  Although  I  think,  on  the  whole,  the  affirmative 
is  probable,  the  view  that  Nature  is  morally  indifferent 
is  capable  of  defence.  Indeed,  we  might  say  that 
Nature  speaks  with  an  ambiguous  voice.  Against 
the  beneficent  minister  to  our  wants  and  the  bountiful 
giver  of  happiness  we  have  to  set  Nature  the  cruel, 
"  red  in  tooth  and  claw." 

If  we  turn  from  Nature  to  history,  we  find  the 
evidence  of  moral  character  of  which  we  are  in  search. 
Often  it  would  seem  that  wickedness  triumphed  and 
that  virtue  went  to  the  wall,  but  in  the  long  run  it 
would  not  be  so.  Working  slowly  and  on  a  large 
scale  we  find  indications  of  what  Matthew  Arnold 
called  a  Power  not  ourselves  that  made  for  righteous- 
ness. We  see  the  gradual  amehoration  of  cruelty  and 
ferocity,  the  emergence  and  triumph  of  loftier  ideals. 


74    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

We  look  back  over  the  past  and  see  great  empires 
rising,  reigning,  and  then  passing  away.  Assyria  and 
Babylon,  Persia  and  Rome,  all  of  them  supreme 
powers  of  the  world,  fell  with  utter  ruin.  And  why 
did  they  fall  ?  Because  their  conquests  had  within 
them  the  seed  of  their  downfall.  These  empires  were 
founded  on  bloodshed  ;  they  had  the  haughtiness  and 
pride  that  lead  to  destruction,  or  the  luxury  and  vice 
that  sap  the  moral  stamina  of  a  nation's  life.  But 
why  should  these  quahties  bear  upon  them  the  stamp 
of  death  ?  Because  the  Power  which  works  in  history 
has  set  its  face  against  them  and  works  for  righteousness. 
It  is  in  man,  however,  that  the  clearest  proof  of 
ethical  theism  is  to  be  sought.  We  have  within  us 
a  witness  for  God.  I  have  already  urged  that  the 
universal  presence  of  reUgion  in  humanity  means  that 
religion  is  part  of  the  very  constitution  of  man.  It 
is  primary  and  fundamental,  for  were  it  a  mere  acci- 
dent it  could  not  have  survived  in  so  many  races 
through  so  many  ages,  under  such  different  skies,  the 
common  possession  of  men  of  character  and  tempera- 
ment so  diverse.  And  I  have  argued  that  we  must 
throw  the  stress  on  the  primal  instinct,  not  on  the 
crude,  or  grotesque,  or  even  horrible  forms  in  which 
it  has  found  expression.  And  what  does  this  desire 
for  fellowship,  this  thirst  for  a  living  God,  which  is 
rooted  in  the  human  breast,  mean  but  this,  that  the 
Power  which  has  fashioned  us  has  woven  it  into  the 
very  web  of  our  being  ? 


Is  there  a  Godt  75 

Bnt  while  religion  points  to  a  personal  God,  the 
same  testimony  is  borne  by  conscience.  We  have 
within  us  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  an  imperative 
conviction  of  duty,  which  clashes  sometimes  with  our 
interests,  often  with  our  pleasures,  and  yet  which 
must  be  obeyed  on  the  penalty  of  acute  dissatisfac- 
tion with  ourselves,  and  remorse  for  our  actions. 
How  are  we  to  explain  the  presence  of  this  strange 
and  often  imwelcome  guest,  withholding  us  from 
gratifications  we  are  tempted  to  desire  and  spurring 
us  to  uncongenial  deeds  of  goodness  ?  Whence  came 
that  inward  judge  which  sits  to  try  our  actions  and 
pronounces  its  verdict  upon  them  ?  Who  gave  it  its 
regal  authority  ?  Neither  Nature  nor  man  could 
have  produced  it.  This  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  of 
the  eternal  distinction  between  them,  the  demand 
that  we  shall  follow  the  right,  however  rough  the  way 
along  which  it  leads  us,  and  renounce  the  evil,  how- 
ever tempting  the  paths  down  which  it  beckons  us — 
these  are  the  evidences  that  the  Power  which  made  us 
is  itself  moral ;  a  Power  not  only  of  supreme  intelli- 
gence and  might,  but  also  of  inflexible  righteousness. 

Yet  the  most  serious  difficulties  which  theism  has 
to  encounter  are  moral  difficulties.  Let  it  be  clearly 
seen,  however,  that  they  in  no  way  weaken  the  argu- 
ment for  an  all-wise  Creator.  If  this  were  all  that 
we  meant  by  God,  the  argument  might  stop  at  the 
point  already  reached.  But  we  mean  much  more, 
and  cry  out  for  a  God,  not  only  as  the  solution  of  our 


76    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

intellectual  problems,  but  as  the  satisfaction  of  our 
hearts.  And  against  the  belief  in  the  moral  character 
of  God  weighty  objections  have  been  brought.  At 
present  I  can  deal  with  them  only  from  the  standpoint 
of  theism ;  but  I  may  so  far  anticipate  here  as  to 
say  that  I  think  they  can  be  dealt  with  most  success- 
fully from  the  Christian  point  of  view.  And  this 
applies  especially  to  what  I  have  to  say  about  sin. 

The  existence  of  sin  is  often  urged  as  a  formidable 
objection  to  belief  in  a  good  God.  If  God  created 
man,  not  knowing  that  he  would  sin,  then  He  is  not 
all- wise ;  but  if  He  knew  it,  then  He  is  not  perfectly 
good.  Such  is  the  dilemma  on  the  horns  of  which  it 
is  supposed  that  we  are  impaled.  No  doubt  sin  is  a 
difficulty.  But  some  considerations  may  be  urged  in 
arrest  of  hasty  judgment.  We  caimot  take  refuge  in 
the  view  that  God  did  not  foresee  human  sin.  We 
must  take  up  the  position  that  He  created  man  with 
the  full  consciousness  that  he  would  sin,  and  make 
the  best  of  it.  Now  it  is  clear  that  if  God  had  made 
men  incapable  of  sin  this  difficulty  would  have  been 
avoided.  But  it  is  no  less  clear  that  the  price  would 
have  been  too  costly.  For  then  men  would  have  been 
mere  machines,  offering  to  God  devotion  which,  as 
compulsory,  would  have  been  worthless  to  Him.  If 
the  service  of  their  hearts  was  to  be  spontaneous,  they 
must  render  it  freely,  and  must  therefore  be  free  also 
to  withhold  it.  And  this  was  God's  alternative, 
either  to  create  men  free  or  not  to  create  them  at  all. 


Is  there  a  Godf  77 

In  other  words,  Creation  involves  the  risk  of  sin,  in 
this  case  we  may  even  say  the  certainty  of  it.  And 
if  this  alternative  is  involved  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
we  ought  to  be  sure  of  our  ground  before  we  criticise 
God  for  choosing  one  course  rather  than  the  other. 
We  who  are  in  the  mid-stream  of  human  history 
cannot  rightly  decide  on  a  question  which  can  be 
solved  only  by  one  who  sees  it  as  a  whole  from  the 
standpoint  of  eternity.  All  we  can  rightly  ask  is  that 
God  shall  vindicate  His  own  hatred  of  sin,  and  take 
measures  to  deal  with  it  as  effectively  as  may  be. 
And  when  the  case  is  thus  stated,  even  apart  from 
the  Christian  solution,  we  may  fairly  hold  the  objec- 
tion urged  against  the  morahty  of  God  to  be  at  least 
inconclusive.  Added  to  which,  I  may  merely  note 
that  this  is  one  of  the  points  at  which  the  theory  of 
development  is  very  helpful  to  the  theistic  view. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  linger  over  the  view  that 
physical  death  is  inconsistent  with  Divine  goodness. 
Were  it  not  for  the  blessed  and  beneficent  ministry  of 
Death  the  world  would  soon  be  so  crowded  that  new 
births  would  be  impossible.  Life  would  stagnate  and 
lose  its  interest,  and  all  progress  be  crushed  beneath 
the  dead  weight  of  conservatism.  So  far  as  there  is 
anything  terrible  about  death,  it  is  due  to  sin ;  and 
if  the  previous  objection  be  disallowed,  this  really 
falls  with  it. 

But  a  far  more  serious  difficulty,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  that  caused  by  pain.    This,  again,  is  mitigated  by 


78    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

several  considerations.  It  is  probable  that  the  pain 
of  animals  is  very  greatly  exaggerated.  They  are  at 
least  spared  the  agonising  apprehensions  which  often 
torture  ns  much  more  than  the  actual  pain  itself. 
And  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  feel  far  less 
than  w^e,  in  our  imaginative  sympathy,  are  apt  to 
beheve.  It  is  not  slaughter  of  the  weak  by  the  strong 
for  food  that  constitutes  the  difficulty.  That  is,  on 
the  whole,  a  merciful  provision  of  Nature,  unattended 
with  serious  pain.  But  there  are  darker  features 
which  must  not  be  ignored  in  the  tragic  story,  and 
which  we  must  leave  as  incompletely  solved  mysteries. 
If  we  turn  to  human  pain,  we  can  see  that  it  has  its 
function  to  fulfil.  It  preserves  Ufe  by  caUing  atten- 
tion to  points  of  danger ;  and,  so  far  as  it  visits  us 
with  retribution  for  violated  law,  we  have  no  right 
to  complain.  It  serves  also  as  moral  disciphne,  a  fact 
attested  by  much  experience.  It  is  of  peculiar  value 
in  that  it  invokes  the  sympathy  of  others,  and  is 
indeed  doubly  blessed  in  the  increased  refinement  and 
tenderness  of  the  sympathetic,  and  the  comfort  the 
sympathy  brings  to  the  sufferer.  But  when  all  this 
has  been  said,  serious  difficulties  remain.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  many  feel,  as  I  feel  myself,  that  the  most 
urgent  argument  against  theism  is  suppUed  by  the 
deliberate  cruelties  with  the  records  of  which  history 
abounds.  It  is  the  torture  chambers  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, or  the  Armenian  massacres,  which  furnish  the 
most  teUing  arguments  against  the  goodness  of  God. 


Is  there  a  Godf  79 

True,  man  inflicts  the  torture  ;  but,  we  ask,  why  doefi 
God  permit  it  ?  Why  has  He  not  long  ago  sent  the 
Sultan  of  Turkey  to  a  congenial  hell  ?  I  do  not  make 
light  of  these  objections ;  they  are  real  and  pressing. 
But  something  may  be  said  to  help  us  from  the  Chris- 
tian standpoint.  Meanwhile  let  us  remember  that, 
however  great  the  difficulties  may  be,  we  must  balance 
them  against  the  group  on  the  other  side ;  and  also 
that  we  cannot  reasonably  expect  to  explain  every- 
thing, but  must  leave  some  place  for  mystery.  Other- 
wise the  trial  of  our  faith  would  be  no  trial  at  all.  I 
conclude  by  affirming  my  own  conviction,  that  the 
rival  theories  are  weighted  with  more  serious  diffi- 
culties than  theism ;  and  that  the  objections  which 
may  be  urged  against  it  are  not  sufficient  to  override 
the  arguments  in  its  favour. 


CHAPTER   V 
WHICH  IS  THE  BEST  RELIGION  ? 

SINCE  we  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  man 
must  have  a  religion,  the  question  now  arises, 
which  of  the  competing  religions  best  satisfies  our 
ideal  of  what  a  religion  should  be  ?  At  this  stage  of 
our  inquiry  no  question  is  raised  as  to  the  truth  of 
this  or  any  other  rehgion.  The  method  here  adopted 
is  that  of  first  discovering  the  worthiest  rehgion,  and 
only  then  asking  if  it  be  true.  We  shall  be  best  able 
to  judge  of  worth  if  we  begin  by  stating  what  tests 
we  may  expect  a  religion  to  satisfy,  what  tests  it  must 
satisfy,  if  we  are  to  accept  it.  No  doubt  it  may  be 
urged  that  there  is  a  danger  lest  those  tests  should 
be  selected  which  Christianity  meets  most  success- 
fully, and  thus  an  undue  favouritism  determine 
beforehand  which  religion  shall  win  the  crown.  I 
hope  that  the  tests  actually  chosen  will  justify  them- 
selves ;  but  I  may  add  that  we  are  warranted  in  ap- 
pealing to  Cliristianity  for  suggestion  here,  since  such 
excellences  as  it  possesses  may  reasonably  be  required 
in  any  religion  that  seeks  to  rival  it,  imless,  indeed, 

So 


WbdcJi  is  the  best  Religion  f  8i 

the  latter  has  compensatory  virtues  in  which  Chris- 
tianity is  deficient. 

The  first  test  grows  directly  out  of  the  nature  of 
religion  itself.  It  is,  Does  a  given  rehgion  attempt 
to  secure  fellowship  with  God  ?  Now,  this  is  not  an 
element  in  religion  suggested  simply  by  Christianity. 
Communion  with  the  higher  powers  is  an  almost  con- 
stant feature  in  religions,  which  manifests  itself  in 
prayer  and  sacrifice.  Next,  Does  it  combine  with  this 
a  worthy  conception  of  God,  and  thus  secure  the 
reverence  and  awe  for  Him  which  alone  make  true 
worship  possible  ?  We  cannot  worship  a  God  less 
worthy  than  ourselves  in  our  best  moments ;  we 
must  feel  that  He  is  infinitely  holy  as  well  as  in- 
finitely kind.  And  this  leads  me  to  mention  the  third 
test,  Does  it  recognise  sin  as  the  virulent  poison  that 
it  is,  reckon  with  and  try  to  overcome  it  ?  Our  con- 
science demands  this,  as  well  as  our  conception  of 
God.  If  He  is  holy,  sin  must  hinder  that  communion 
with  Him  in  which  the  essence  of  religion  consists. 
Sin,  as  we  know  it  in  human  fife,  is  an  evil  that  de- 
mands radical  treatment,  and  a  rehgion  which  claims 
to  be  the  highest  must  be  competent  to  deal  with  it 
as  it  deserves.  Further,  we  are  entitled  to  ask  that 
it  throw  the  weight  of  its  influence  on  the  side  of 
morahty.  On  this  I  need  not  dwell.  We  may  also 
insist  that  it  shall  serve  humanity  and  work  for 
progress.  The  elevation  of  society  and  the  individual 
are   worthy   aims   of   the   highest   rehgion ;    indeed, 


82    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

essential  if  it  is  to  be  the  highest.  Lastly,  it  must  be 
a  universal  religion — that  is,  appeal  to  man  as  man, 
independently  of  any  Hmitations  of  race  or  time,  of 
country  or  nationaUty.  It  does  not  need  to  be  proved 
that  such  limitations  disqualify  for  the  prize. 

Now,  it  is  quite  plain  that  these  tests  exclude  at 
once  the  vast  number  of  historical  rehgions.  Three 
of  these  alone  can  be  called  universal  rehgions — 
Buddhism,  Islam,  and  Christianity  —  and  the  right 
of  Islam  to  a  place  in  this  list  is  not  uncontested. 
But  even  if  it  survive  this  test,  it  fails  to  satisfy 
others.  It  emphasises  the  greatness  of  God,  but  in 
such  a  one-sided  way  that  He  is  regarded  as  far  too 
great,  and  man  as  too  abject,  for  fellowship  to  subsist 
between  them.  And  out  of  this,  too,  springs  its 
paralysing  fatahsm,  which  makes  progress  impossible 
— a  defect  which  is  patent  to  all  who  know  what 
Mohammedan  countries  are.  The  position  it  accords 
to  woman  (a  sure  test  of  its  social  quality)  is  low. 
Its  moral  code  is  also  not  high.  These  defects  are  in 
the  religion  itself,  not  due  to  defective  practice  on  the 
part  of  its  adherents.  Buddhism,  again,  is  funda- 
mentally atheistic,  and  therefore  cannot  provide 
fellowship  with  God.  Attempts  to  supply  this  defect 
have  been  made,  but  at  the  price  of  the  degradation 
of  the  religion.  Buddhism  is  also  pessimistic  ;  and 
while,  in  one  respect,  this  is  its  glory — for  it  was  be- 
gotten of  the  great  pity  of  its  Founder  for  the  woes 
gf  man — yet  it  is  also  its  condemnation.    For  while 


Which  is  the  best  Religion  f  ^Z 

it  recognises  the  terrible  evils  of  the  world,  it  does  not 
confront  them  with  any  hope  of  removing  them. 
How  could  it,  when  it  teaches  that  existence  is  itself 
an  evil  ? 

Of  these  three  historic  religions  Christianity  re- 
mains. Will  it  also  fail  to  satisfy  these  conditions  ? 
I  believe  that  it  meets  them  all.  It  has  a  very  lofty 
conception  of  God.  It  has  taken  up  and  made  its 
own  the  great  passages  in  which  the  prophets  of  Israel 
declared  His  incomparable  holiness  and  majesty.  It 
insisted  on  His  spirituality,  and  demanded  in  harmony 
with  it  a  worship  in  spirit  and  truth.  But  while  the 
greatness  of  God  was  asserted  and  reverence  in  His 
worship  was  enjoined,  these  were  not  so  emphasised 
as  to  make  fellowship  with  God  impossible  for  man. 
Jesus  taught  His  disciples  to  say,  **  Hallowed  be  Thy 
Name,"  but  He  had  first  taught  them  to  say,  "  Our 
Father."  And  Father  on  His  Hps  was  the  highest 
name  He  could  give.  It  expressed  the  essential  kin- 
ship of  man  with  God  and  the  great  truth  that  He 
had  made  us  in  His  image,  that  this,  indeed,  consti- 
tutes us  men.  Since,  then,  all  men  are  His  offspring, 
there  is  that  community  of  nature  which  makes 
fellowship  with  Him  possible.  But,  further,  Chris- 
tianity teaches  that  in  the  Incarnation  of  the  eternal 
Son,  God  has  entered  into  the  life  of  man  and  taken 
humanity  into  Himself.  Thus  by  an  act  of  marvellous 
grace  and  sacrifice  God  and  man  have  been  brought 
together.    And  this  may  be  realised  by  each  individual 


84    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

In  hii  own  experience,  for  by  faith  all  may  enter  into 
personal  union  with  Christ.  Thus  man  rises  to  share 
in  that  blessed  communion  which  subsists  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  And  since  the  intrinsic  worth  of 
fellowship  depends  on  the  character  of  the  God  with 
whom  we  have  communion,  it  may  be  claimed  that 
in  Christianity  this  is  of  the  highest  type,  for  it  teaches 
that  God  is  Love,  and  that  He  has  proved  it  by  the 
sacrifice  of  His  Son.  And  it  is  unique  in  its  success 
in  fusing  the  righteousness  and  the  love  of  God  into  a 
perfect  unity  by  its  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 
Again,  it  recognises  the  fact  of  sin,  deals  with  it, 
and  overcomes  it.  No  doubt  it  creates  difficulties  for 
itself  by  its  frank  admission  of  the  fact  of  sin.  The 
existence  of  moral  evil  is  a  stumbling-block  to  faith. 
If  it  could  be  denied  or  ignored,  a  great  burden  would 
be  lifted  from  men's  minds.  It  is,  therefore,  to  the 
honour  of  Christianity  that  it  does  not  attempt  to 
palliate  it,  much  less  to  ignore  it.  More  than  any 
other  reHgion  it  emphasises  its  heinousness,  treats  it 
as  the  worst  of  aU  evils,  insists  on  its  universality, 
throws  aU  its  strength  into  the  conflict  with  it.  It  is 
not  paralysed  in  the  face  of  so  awful  a  power.  It 
measures  its  fuU  strength,  is  well  aware  how  stubborn 
and  prolonged  the  struggle  with  it  wiU  prove,  yet  is 
triumphant  in  the  full  assiu*ance  of  ultimate  victory. 
No  other  rehgion  has  so  seriously  taken  in  hand,  as 
one  of  its  main  tasks,  to  extirpate  the  power  of  sin. 
It  is  pre-eminently  a  religion  of  redemption. 


Which  is  the  best  Religion?  85 

The  loftiness  of  its  morality  will  hardly  be  disputed. 
Not  only  did  it  inculcate  those  ethical  laws  which  were 
generally  recognised  in  the  best  ethical  systems  of  its 
time,  but  it  added  new  virtues,  of  which  humility 
may  be  taken  as  an  example.  But  it  did  more  than 
this.  It  made  a  single  principle,  and  that  the  highest — 
love — the  root  of  the  finest  and  loftiest  life.  And 
thus,  by  reducing  all  to  one  great  principle,  it  freed 
the  moral  life  from  the  tyranny  of  endless  and  per- 
plexing questions  as  to  the  adjustment  of  the  claims 
of  this  commandment  or  that.  Love  was  made  the 
supreme  arbiter  of  conduct.  But  Christianity  did 
even  more.  It  exhibited  the  moral  ideal  in  a  Person, 
and  thus  once  for  all  expressed  the  highest  morahty, 
not  in  a  string  of  commandments,  but  in  the  character 
of  a  Man  who  had  lived  and  died  as  the  type  of  all  per- 
fection. Consider  how  great  this  is,  to  have  delineated 
for  us  a  character  in  which  holiness  is  incarnate,  so 
that  henceforth  when  we  think  of  the  ideal  we  do  not 
add  virtue  to  virtue,  but  think  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
I  need  not  say  how  immeasurably  greater  is  the  power 
of  a  personal  ideal  than  that  of  a  set  of  abstract  rules. 
And  Christianity  has  made  love  to  tliis  Person  the 
supreme  virtue,  in  which  all  other  virtues  are  poten- 
tially included.  For  love  to  Him  implies  a  growing 
likeness  to  Him.  Nay,  more,  it  brings  the  Christian 
into  vital  union  with  Him,  and  thus  communicates 
new  life  and  new  character. 

Does  it  satisfy  the  last  test— that  is,  does  it  serve 


S6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

to  elevate  mankind  ?  It  teaches  that  God  is  the 
Father  of  all  men,  and  therefore  that  all  men  are 
brothers.  It  bids  us  see  in  the  most  vicious  and  de- 
graded, children  of  our  common  Father,  whom  we 
must  love  and  for  whose  emancipation  we  must  toil. 
It  cannot  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  us  that  our 
brothers  should  live  in  privation  and  misery,  in  ignor- 
ance and  vice.  It  is  to  Christianity  that  we  owe  the 
enthusiasm  for  humanity.  Take  the  most  advanced 
peoples  at  the  time  of  Christ's  birth.  The  Jews  were 
the  Ishmaelites  of  the  ancient  world,  repaying  hate 
and  scorn  with  a  hate  and  scorn  still  deeper.  How 
powerful  was  the  spirit  of  the  new  rehgion  may  be 
seen  in  the  case  of  Paul,  who  was  changed  by  it  from 
a  bigoted  and  fanatical  Jew  into  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  often  dwelt  with  wondering  gratitude 
on  the  cancelling  of  all  distinctions  of  race  and  culture 
and  social  status  through  the  cross  of  Christ.  The 
Greeks  looked  down  on  all  other  peoples  as  barbarians, 
and  the  Roman  was  still  haughtier  in  his  imperial 
pride.  But  there  is  a  darker  stain  still.  No  feature 
in  ancient  society  is  more  constant  or  assumes  larger 
proportions  than  that  of  slavery.  It  was  defended  by 
the  greatest  of  Greek  philosophers  on  the  theory  of 
racial  inferiority,  by  the  Roman  lawyers  as  a  commu- 
tation for  the  death  of  the  vanquished  in  war.  Chris- 
tianity taught  that  no  such  inferiority  existed,  that 
God  had  made  all  of  one  blood,  and  that  all  men  were 
brothers.   When  Paul  sent  back  Onesimus  to  Philemon, 


Which  is  the  best  Religion?  87 

no  longer  a  slave,  but  above  a  slave,  a  brother  beloved, 
when  he  said  that  in  Christ  there  could  be  neither  bond 
nor  free,  he  struck  at  the  very  root  of  slavery  by 
enunciating  the  principle  that  no  Christian  could  re- 
gard his  brother  man  as  a  slave.  But  the  humanitarian 
temper  of  Christianity  is  shown  in  many  other  ways. 
To  it  we  owe  the  energetic  provisions  for  the  allevia- 
tion of  suffering,  to  which  the  ancient  world  was 
callous,  the  mitigation  of  the  horrors  of  war,  the 
regard  for  human  Hfe,  and  the  elevation  of  woman. 
Care  for  the  poor  has,  from  the  very  first,  played  a 
large  part  in  the  activities  of  the  Church. 

It  may,  of  course,  be  said  that  all  this  quietly 
ignores  much  that  may  be  charged  against  Chris- 
tianity. What  of  the  rack  and  the  stake  and  all  the 
other  accursed  horrors  of  the  Inquisition,  due  to  zeal 
for  Christianity  ?  What,  too,  of  the  treatment  of  the 
natives  of  America  by  the  Spaniards,  and  of  slavery 
in  the  West  Indies  and  the  Southern  States  ?  What 
of  all  the  other  evils  perpetrated  in  the  name  of 
Christianity,  and  for  which  the  sanction  of  the  re- 
ligion has  been  invoked  ?  These  are  a  dishonour  to 
Christendom,  but  they  are  not  to  be  charged  to 
Christianity.  They  h?ve  no  shadow  of  support  in  the 
teaching  of  Christ  or  the  apostles.  They  stand,  as  I 
have  already  pointed  out,  in  radical  opposition  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Gospel.  The  old 
heathenism  is  still  deeply  rooted  in  society ;  only 
slowly   can  Christianity   make  its   way.     For   very 


88     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  Us  Truth 

much  that  goes  by  the  name  is  quite  foreign,  and  it 
is  not  fair  to  confound  the  nominal  with  the  real. 

But  it  is  not  only  by  its  doctrine  of  brotherhood 
that  Christianity  works  for  the  elevation  of  mankind. 
It  is  only  in  it  that  the  individual  has  received  his 
true  place.  In  antiquity  the  worth  of  the  individual 
was  greatly  under-estimated ;  he  was  unduly  sub- 
ordinated to  the  community.  But  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, by  insisting  on  the  infinite  value  of  each  human 
soul,  and  by  asserting  the  greatness  of  its  destiny, 
supplied  an  immense  incentive  to  the  attainment  by 
each  of  the  highest  within  reach.  The  doctrine  of  the 
worth  of  man  is,  to  aU  who  accept  it,  a  powerful 
stimulus  in  the  struggle  to  a  fuller  and  deeper  Ufe. 
An  interest  in  mankind  in  the  mass  is  compatible  with 
heartless  indifference  to  the  lot  of  individuals.  But 
Christianity  works  for  true  progress  by  its  recognition 
that  every  individual  should  be  the  object  of  its  loving 
service,  while  it  is  not  immindful  of  the  need  for  the 
amehoration  of  society. 

Further,  Christianity  is  possessed  of  an  invincible 
behef  that  no  man  is  to  be  despaired  of.  He  may  be 
so  degraded  that  the  last  hope  of  reform  may  seem  to 
have  gone.  He  may  be  so  hardened  that  every  appeal 
may  seem  to  faU  blunted  from  his  iron-bound  heart. 
But  Jesus  taught  His  followers  to  despair  of  none,  to 
count  no  man  beyond  reach.  Thus  missionaries  have 
laboured  on  in  patience  for  many  years,  seeing  no 
fruit  of  their  labour,  not  giving  up  the  task,  though 


Which  is  the  best  Religion?  89 

often  tempted  to  despair.  Others  have  toiled  among 
the  outcast  and  the  vicious,  and  though  their  work 
seemed  foredoomed  to  failure  they  have  been  upheld 
by  their  Master's  confidence  that  the  worst  may  be 
saved.  And  in  this  Christianity  exhibits  its  power  to 
serve  and  uplift  mankind.  Its  arm  would  be  unnerved 
for  its  work  if  defeat  were  accepted  as  inevitable. 
But  it  will  not  abate  its  confidence  that  in  every  man 
there  is  a  spark  of  good  which  may  be  quickened  into 
a  living  flame. 

We  are  surely,  then,  entitled  to  say  that,  better 
than  any  of  the  other  historic  religions,  Christianity 
satisfies  the  tests  to  which  any  religion  that  claims  our 
adhesion  may  legitimately  be  submitted.  There  are 
other  competitors  which  might  be  considered.  But 
they  can  hardly  be  thought  superior,  as  rehgions,  to 
Christianity ;  and  if  they  command  acceptance,  it  is 
with  those  who  think  that  the  truth  of  the  facts  on 
which  Christianity  rests  is  insufficiently  substantiated. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  speak  further  of  them  now. 
Nor  will  it  be  needful  to  consider  them  if  the  subse- 
quent discussion  establish  not  simply  that  Christianity 
is  the  best  religion,  but  also  that  it  is  true. 


CHAPTER    VI 
THE  TRINITY   IN  UNITY 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the  foundation  on 
which  the  stately  structure  of  Christian  theology 
reposes.  To  the  man  in  the  street  this  doctrine  seems 
often  to  exhibit  the  theologian  at  his  worst.  Here 
we  have,  the  plain  man  is  inclined  to  say,  the  love  of 
theological  subtleties,  the  hair-sphtting  definition,  the 
passion  for  the  mysterious  and  incomprehensible  carried 
to  the  cHmax  of  appropriate  absurdity.  It  seems  an 
arithmetical  puzzle  which  shocks  the  reverence  of  the 
more  devout,  while  it  provokes  the  derision  of  those 
who  pride  themselves  on  a  robust  common  sense. 

With  the  scruples  of  reverence  I  have  the  warmest 
sympathy.  It  is  true  that  theologians  have  often 
been  tempted  to  push  their  investigations  into  regions 
where  they  have  no  right  to  tread,  and  to  solve  the 
impenetrable  mysteries  as  if  they  were  schoolboy  prob- 
lems. To  pass  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  with  bold  and 
confident  step,  ^vith  no  sense  that  we  are  treading  on 
sacred  ground,  would  be  profane  indeed.    But  it  was 

90 


The  Trinity  in  Unity  91 

no  desire  to  mystify  the  unlettered  believer,  no  delight 
in  spinning  theological  subtleties  for  their  own  sake, 
no  proud  confidence  in  their  own  intellectual  agility 
and  power,  that  impelled  the  theologians  of  the  Church 
to  formulate  this  doctrine.  We  entirely  misunder- 
stand it  if  we  look  at  it  as  a  performance  in  speculative 
gymnastics,  the  feat  of  intellectual  acrobats. 

The  doctrine  was  created  not  so  much  in  a  specula- 
tive as  in  a  religious  interest.  It  was  no  metaphysical 
subtlety,  no  unnecessary  burden  placed  on  faith  by  the 
ingenuity  of  theologians.  Not  philosophy,  but  the 
Christian  revelation  attested  by  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness forced  the  Church  to  construct  the  abstract 
doctrine  in  order  that  she  might  safeguard  what  was 
vital  to  her  existence.  And  it  was  with  some  reluct- 
ance that  she  undertook  the  task,  profoundly  con- 
scious, at  any  rate  in  her  greatest  representatives, 
how  perilous  and  difficult  a  path  she  essayed.  But 
when  the  great  redemptive  facts,  apart  from  which 
she  had  no  meaning  and  could  maintain  no  perma- 
nence, were  in  mortal  peril,  what  could  she  do  but 
take  up  the  gauntlet  that  had  been  flung  down  and 
develop  the  truths  that  were  impHcit  in  her  belief  ? 
This  is  not  to  approve  of  the  methods  by  which  the 
truth  was  formulated  and  enforced.  But  we  may 
humbly  beUeve  that  through  all  the  imperfection  of 
human  instruments  which  seemed,  indeed,  so  intract- 
able to  His  hand  God  was  guiding  to  their  right  con- 
clusion the  mighty  issues  of  the  debate. 


92    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

I  turn,  then,  to  consider  the  causes  which  compelled 
the  Church  to  formulate  this  doctrine  if  she  was  to 
guard  the  truth  committed  to  her  charge.  And  first 
I  must  speak  of  its  historical  development.  The 
doctrine  is  specifically  Christian,  and  not  Jewish. 
There  is  no  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  m  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  idea  that  the  mystery  is  hinted  in  the  use 
of  the  plural  word  for  God,  Elohim,  with  the  singular 
verb,  or  in  the  thrice-repeated  cry  of  "  Holy  "  in  the 
Song  of  the  Seraphim,  may  be  confidently  set  aside. 
Tt  is  clear,  indeed,  why  the  revelation  of  this  doctrine 
would  have  been  premature.  It  would  probably  have 
created  a  new  polytheism.  In  a  world  where  poly- 
theism was  rampant  the  first  necessity  was  to  stamp 
deep  into  the  consciousness  of  Israel  the  unity  of  God. 
It  has  been  hard  enough  in  the  Christian  Church  itself 
to  keep  out  tendencies  to  polytheism,  whether  as  sur- 
vivals of  the  old  paganism  or  an  exaggeration  of  the 
distinctions  within  the  Godhead  into  a  belief  in  three 
Gods.  It  would  have  complicated  the  problem  enor- 
mously if,  when  every  nerve  had  to  be  strained  to 
hold  fast  the  unity  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
had  been  prematurely  revealed. 

Yet  there  were  tendencies  in  the  Old  Testament 
itself  which  foreshadowed  the  breaking  up  of  the 
abstract  unity  in  the  direction  subsequently  taken  by 
Christianity.  The  description  of  the  Divine  Wisdom, 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs,  as  God's  possession 
in  the  beginning  of  His  ways,  set  up  from  everlasting 


The  Trinity  in  Unity  93 

before  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  His  companion 
and  master-workman  in  the  task  of  creation,  is  a  very 
striking  anticipation  of  the  later  doctrine.  So  "  the 
Presence  of  Yahweh  '*  or  "  the  angel  of  His  presence," 
a  conception  difficult  to  grasp,  because  not  quite  to 
be  identified  with  Yahweh,  nor  yet  easily  distinguish- 
able from  Him,  is  another  such  anticipation.  Similarly, 
we  might  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Sphit  in  the  later 
chapters  of  Isaiah. 

With  the  growing  sense  of  the  majesty  of  God,  and 
His  separation  from  mankind  that  marked  the  post- 
exilic  period,  there  were  other  developments  which 
contributed  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment doctrine.  Intermediaries  were  inserted  between 
God  and  the  universe,  both  to  keep  the  Supreme  Being 
aloof  from  the  trivial  concerns  of  man,  and  in  another 
form  of  speculation  to  keep  Him  from  contact  with 
matter.  On  the  one  side,  this  found  expression  in  an 
elaborate  doctrine  of  angels.  On  the  other  side, 
especially  in  the  Jewish  Platonism  of  Alexandria  repre- 
sented most  conspicuously  by  Philo,  it  introduced 
into  Jewish  thought  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  a  term 
which  bore  not  simply  the  sense  of  *'  Word,"  but  even 
more  strongly  the  sense  of  "  Reason." 

Such,  then,  were  the  tendencies  already  at  work  in 
Judaism  which  prepared  the  way  for  the  Christian 
doctrine.  It  cannot  be  said  that  they  yield  to  us  any 
real  distinction  within  the  Godhead.  They  are  rather 
vivid  personifications  than  distinct  persons.    Yet  they 


94     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

prepared  the  mould  into  which  the  Christian  facts 
might  be  poured,  and  the  terminology  in  which  the 
Christian  doctrine  could  find  expression.  It  must  be 
remembered,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
itself  came  to  full  expression  only  at  a  comparatively 
late  period.  The  Church  did  not  start  out  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  seek  to  construct  in  the 
light  of  it  the  great  facts  of  revelation  and  redemption. 
She  started  from  the  facts  and  moved  forward  slowly 
to  a  goal  of  which  she  was  only  dimly  conscious  for 
much  of  her  way.  The  formulation  of  doctrine  grew 
out  of  the  historical  manifestation,  and,  till  the  Son 
of  God  had  been  revealed,  the  basis  for  the  doctrine  in 
experience  was  lacking.  Moreover,  not  only  was  there 
no  formulation  of  the  doctrine  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  but  there  is  no  exphcit  formulation  of  it  in 
the  New  Testament  itself. 

There  are,  however,  striking  Trinitarian  formulae  in 
the  New  Testament.  First  of  all  we  have  the  baptismal 
formula  :  "  Baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  I  do  not 
press  this  as  though  it  were  an  endorsement  of  the 
ecclesiastical  doctrine  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  Himself, 
since  the  authenticity  of  the  saying  is  disputed  by 
several  critics ;  but  I  would  point  out  that  in  our 
earhest  New  Testament  documents,  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  formulae  of  this  kind  occur,  and,  since  we 
have  no  trace  of  controversy  in  the  Church  aroused 
by  them^  it  remains  a  plausible  explanation  that  Jesus 


The  Trinity  in   Unity  95 

Himself  had  uttered  the  words  ascribed  to  Him  in  the 
baptismal  commission.  We  have  especially  the  apos- 
tolic benediction  in  2  Corinthians  xiii.  14.  In  i  Corin- 
thians xii.  4-6  we  have  a  remarkable  co-ordination  of 
the  Spirit,  the  Lord,  and  God.  And  there  are  several 
other  passages  that  might  be  quoted  from  the  New 
Testament  in  this  connexion. 

The  question  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  so  im- 
portant and  fundamental  that  I  must  devote  a  special 
discussion  to  it,  and  therefore  do  not  exhibit  the 
evidence  for  it  here.  But  the  early  Christians  held 
together  two  Unes  of  thought  which  logically  forced 
them  to  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  Godhead. 
On  the  one  side  they  held  fast  as  against  polytheism 
the  unity  of  God ;  on  the  other  hand  they  asserted 
the  divinity  of  Christ.  It  is  by  no  means  imcommon 
for  people  to  keep  two  apparently  inconsistent  ideas 
in  their  mind,  unrelated  and  unreconciled.  But, 
sooner  or  later,  logic  does  its  work  and  forces  them 
either  to  reconcile  the  ideas  or  abandon  one  of  them. 

We  learn  from  Tertullian  that  there  were  many 
Christians  unversed  in  theology  who  dreaded  the 
doctrine  of  distinctions  within  the  Godhead,  since 
they  imagined  that  this  involved  a  relapse  into  poly- 
theism. Hence  arose  such  expressions  as  "  I  beheve 
in  one  God,  Jesus  Christ,"  or  the  view  that  Father 
and  Son  were  identical.  This  tendency  found  its 
fullest  expression  in  the  Sabellian  doctrine  that  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit  were  but  three  modes  or  aspects  under 


96    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

which  the  one  God  successively  revealed  Himself.  But 
this  did  not  satisfy  the  deeper  thinkers  of  the  Church. 
It  led  to  inextricable  confusion  and  conflicted  with 
the  phenomena  of  the  Gospel  history,  which  repre- 
sented a  marked  distinction  as  existing  between  Jesus 
and  the  Father.  How  could  it  be  thought  that  Jesus 
was  identical  with  the  Father  to  whom  He  prayed, 
or  how  could  He  utter  the  agonised  cry,  "  My  God, 
My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ?  "  The  prob- 
lem, therefore,  could  not  be  solved  along  such  simple 
lines  as  these.  It  must  succeed  in  combining  the  unity 
of  God  with  the  distinction  of  Father  and  Son,  and 
the  same  apphed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  our  own  time  it  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  inter- 
pretations of  the  Trinity  which  recall  to  us  the  old 
SabeUianism.  All  the  personal  distinctions  in  the 
Godhead  are  denied,  and  we  learn  that  the  Father  is 
God  in  Nature,  the  Son  God  in  Christ,  the  Spirit  God 
in  History  or  in  the  Church.  Such  formulae  as  these, 
while  they  are  superficially  attractive,  nevertheless  cut 
the  vital  meaning  out  of  the  Gospel.  They  are  not 
^ally  compatible  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity 
as  we  are  familiar  with  it  in  Christian  theology,  and 
they  lose  all  that  positive  wealth  of  moral  and  meta- 
physical significance  which  we  find  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church. 

A  reconciliation  was  sought  along  the  Unes  of  re- 
garding the  Son  and  Spirit  as  beings  of  inferior  essence. 
I  do  not  enter  into  the  different  forms  which  this 


The   Trinity  in   Unity  97 

doctrine  assumed,  culminating,  as  they  did,  in  the 
various  types  of  Arianism.  Here,  again,  the  Church 
felt  that  injustice  was  done  to  her  facts.  She  was 
sure  of  the  real  and  essential  divinity  of  her  Founder 
and  Redeemer ;  she  offered  prayer  to  Him  and  not 
simply  in  His  name.  Therefore  she  could  not  assign 
to  Him  the  position  of  a  creature  whose  co-existence 
with  the  Father  was  not  eternal,  and  at  the  same  time 
do  justice  to  the  Christian  consciousness  as  to  His 
work  and  the  position  assigned  to  Him  in  Christian 
devotion.  The  issue  of  the  long  debate  was  the  definite 
formulation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity. 

When  we  confess  this  truth  we  should  not  think  of 
it  merely  as  expressing  the  fact  that  God  manifests 
Himself  to  us  as  a  Trinity  in  creation,  revelation,  and 
redemption.  We  regard  this  manifestation  as  corre- 
sponding to  essential  and  eternal  distinctions  within 
God  Himself.  Now  it  is  easy  to  criticise  this  doctrine 
as  the  height  of  unreason.  Many  regard  it  as  really 
denying  the  unity  of  God  while  formally  asserting  it. 
Nothing  would  be  gained  by  so  insisting  on  the  unity 
as  to  cancel  any  real  distinctions  between  the  persons. 
Unquestionably  the  orthodox  Christian  means  to 
affirm  the  unity  of  God  as  earnestly  as  the  non- 
Trinitarian.  He  believes,  in  fact,  that  his  doctrine 
steers  the  middle  course  between  deism  and  pan- 
theism. He  is  well  aware  that  here  the  path  narrows 
to  a  razor  edge,  for  how  is  he  to  state  the  truth  so  as 
to  avoid  Sabellianism  on  the  one  hand  and  tritheisra 

H 


98      Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

on  the  other  ?  How  secure  at  once  the  plurality  and 
the  unity  ?  But  that  seems  to  him  no  reason  for  im- 
poverishing his  faith  by  decHning  to  accept  the  perilous 
enterprise.  The  great  theologians  have  freely  con- 
ceded the  insufficiency  of  all  human  statement ;  and 
we  may  at  least  be  sure  that  a  doctrine  of  the  God- 
head with  the  element  of  mystery  eliminated  could 
not  in  the  nature  of  things  be  true. 

We  must  remember  that  we  cannot  apply  to  the 
inner  life  of  God  considerations  which  are  simply  true 
of  human  experience.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  the 
interior  Hfe  of  God  must  be  largely  unimaginable  to  us. 
We  may  expect  it  to  exhibit  a  blending  of  character- 
istics which  on  our  own  lower  plane  of  existence  would 
be  mutually  exclusive.  Obviously  human  life  is  no 
measure  for  the  life  of  God,  and  if  we  set  to  work 
constructing  it  from  the  facts  of  our  consciousness  or 
our  social  relations,  we  shall  arrive  at  very  incomplete 
results.  If  it  be  true  that  God  exists  as  a  Trinity  in 
Unity,  we  can  know  this  only  through  revelation,  and 
finite  creatures  are  plainly  no  judges  of  what  may  or 
may  not  be  possible  in  the  existence  of  an  infinite 
Being. 

Moreover,  it  is  very  important  to  remember  that 
human  language  is  the  precipitate  of  human  experi- 
ence. Hence  all  the  terms  it  has  at  command  are 
terms  which  are  in  a  sense  vitiated  for  its  purpose  by 
this  radical  limitation.  For  how  can  any  terms  which 
have  been  created  to  express  human  experience,  and 


The  Trinity  in   Unity  99 

have  human  associations  clinging  about  them,  be 
adequate  to  set  forth  the  inner  life  of  the  Divine, 
which  has  no  analogy  in  human  experience,  and  there- 
fore no  terminology  in  human  lamguage  ?  Hence  such 
terms  as  "  person  "  and  "  substance,"  "  subsistence  '' 
and  "  essence,"  "  generation  "  and  "  procession," 
while  they  are  used  in  the  technical  phraseology  of  the 
subject,  have  inevitably  misleading  suggestions  as- 
sociated with  them.  For  example,  the  technical  term 
for  describing  the  subsistences  that  make  up  God  is 
Person.  Originally  this  meant  a  mask ;  hence  the 
phrase,  three  persons,  originally  bore  a  Sabellian 
significance,  that  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  were  terms 
expressing  three  different  aspects.  The  sense  of  the 
term  has  shifted,  so  that  now  three  persons  in  common 
language  would  imply,  not  the  same  individual  in 
three  aspects,  but  three  distinct  individuals ;  but  we 
cannot  apply  that  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
otherwise  we  fall  over  at  once  into  tritheism.  We 
may  say  that  the  truth  lies  between  the  sense  of  person 
as  aspect  and  its  sense  as  individual,  but  how  we  are 
to  combine  the  distinction  with  the  unity  is  a  problem 
wholly  beyond  the  wit  of  man,  because  we  have  no 
analogy  in  our  experience  to  qualify  us  for  under- 
standing it.  For  us  persons  are  mutually  exclusive 
individuals  ;  the  persons  in  the  Godhead  are  mutually 
inclusive  :  there  is  a  mutual  indwelling  of  each  in  the 
others. 
But  while  it  is  not  possible  to  evolve  the  doctrine 


100    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

of  the  Trinity  from  our  own  inner  consciousness,  or 
adequately  to  express  it  in  human  language,  yet  once 
it  has  been  revealed  to  us  we  are  able  to  see  a  depth 
and  richness  of  meaning  in  it  that  otherwise  we  might 
not  have  realised.  For  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
provides  us  with  a  conception  of  God  which  answers 
our  speculative  problems  and  satisfies  our  religious 
needs.  \ 

In  the  first  place,  it  helps  to  secure  the  Personality 
of  God.  In  our  own  case  the  consciousness  of  person- 
ality is  aroused  and  sustained  by  the  sense  of  contrast 
between  the  self  and  the  not-self  into  which  we  divide 
the  universe.  We  distinguish  ourselves  from  the 
world  about  us.  Thus  we  come  to  apprehend  our  own 
personahty,  and  sharply  to  define  its  limits.  We  may 
see  in  the  distinctions  within  the  Godhead  that  which 
makes  the  divine  self-consciousness  possible.  It  might 
be  urged,  however,  that  this  could  be  secured  by  the 
existence  of  the  external  universe.  But  to  that  there 
are  two  objections.  In  the  first  place,  it  would  im- 
pair the  absoluteness  of  God,  since  He  would  depend 
for  the  realisation  of  His  personahty  on  something 
external  to  Himself.  And  the  material  universe  would 
not  be  adequate  for  the  purpose.  We  achieve  a  sense 
of  oiu"  own  personality  only  in  the  society  of  our 
fellows.  We  can  win  it  to  a  certain  extent  by  con- 
trast with  animate  and  inanimate  nature,  but  the 
deepest  elements  of  our  personahty  can  find  their 
satisfaction  only  in  those  who  are  constituted  as  our- 


The  Trinity  in  (J^  •'•'''•;*;  i-V  i^%?? 

selves.  And,  similarly,  the  material  universe  could 
never  suffice  for  the  need  of  the  Creator.  But  neither 
can  we  make  God  dependent  for  self-realisation  on 
personalities  outside  Himself.  This  would  mean  that 
God  could  not  be  completely  God  till  He  had  created 
spirits  for  fellowship  with  Himself,  and  so  once  again 
His  absoluteness  would  be  impaired  and  the  Infinite 
made  to  depend  on  the  finite  for  His  perfection. 
Thus  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  guards  the  person- 
ality of  God. 

Similarly  we  know  that  for  the  existence  of  a  moral 
life  society  is  necessary.  Here,  too,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  helps  us  because  it  ensures  for  us  the  essential 
morahty  of  God.  In  that  divine  society  of  unity 
which  is  the  home  of  difference  moral  relations  have 
eternally  existed.  And,  pre-eminently,  this  is  true  of 
love.  We  do  not  think  of  love  as  a  moral  attribute 
of  God ;  it  is  the  very  essence  of  His  moral  being. 
And  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  assures  us  that  love 
has  not  been  merely  a  potentiality  latent  in  God  to 
be  subsequently  called  into  activity  when  He  created 
new  spirits  that  He  might  escape  from  solitude  ;  but 
in  the  circle  of  His  own  being  there  were  always  the 
lover  and  the  loved.  Thus  He  did  not  need  to  go  out- 
side of  Himself  to  find  the  perfection  of  His  moral 
any  more  than  of  His  metaphysical  being.  He  is  the 
self-sufficient  God. 

We  do  not  speak  of  the  lonely  God  as  some  havt 
done,  for  from  eternity  He  is  th«  perfect  society,  need- 


.',  i^%Cirhuant:j' :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ing  for  His  beatitude  no  being  outside  Himself.  And 
thus  God  did  not  need  the  world  of  created  spirits 
to  satisfy  His  life.  Hence  it  was  not  the  compulsion 
of  an  inward  necessity  or  the  thirst  for  His  own  content 
which  impelled  Him  to  the  work  of  creation.  When 
He  called  the  universe  into  being  there  was  no  tinge 
of  self-seeking  in  His  act,  but  only  the  impulse  of  a 
boundless  love  to  create  an  innumerable  multitude  of 
spirits  as  objects  of  His  beneficence.  Thus  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  meets  the  demand  that  the  Absolute 
should  be  the  home  of  moral  and  spiritual  relations. 

I  am  well  aware  that  much  which  has  been  said 
seems  to  involve  simply  a  duahty  and  not  a  Trinity 
in  God.  The  thought  that  the  distinction  of  subject 
and  object  is  a  necessary  safeguard  for  the  personality 
and  the  love  of  God  is  satisfied  by  the  recognition 
within  the  Godhead  of  Father  and  Son.  I  doubt 
whether  the  ingenious  attempts  that  have  been  made 
to  infer  on  speculative  grounds  the  tliird  centre  of 
self-consciousness  within  the  Godhead  really  carry 
much  conviction  with  them.  If,  then,  we  assert  that 
the  Godhead  consists  not  merely  of  Father  and  Son, 
but  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  we  do  so  simply  in 
loyalty  to  what  we  conceive  to  be  implied  in  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  then,  expresses  the 
richness  and  fullness  of  the  life  of  God  and  its  suf&ciency 
for  itself.  The  postulates,  that  self-consciousness  de- 
pends for  its  existence  on  a  society,  that  the  self  can 


The  Trinity  in   Unity  103 

know  itself  only  through  contrast  with  the  not-self, 
and,  further,  that  love  necessitates  the  lover  and  the 
loved,  find  their  satisfaction  in  the  Christian  conception 
of  God  as  no  bare  and  abstract  unity,  but  a  unity  rich 
and  complex,  embracing  different  centres  of  conscious- 
ness in  mutual  relation.  Thus  we  secure  the  condi- 
tions both  of  a  personal  and  a  moral  Hfe  in  God  with- 
out needing  to  call  in  the  help  of  an  eternal  creation. 
That  life  we  can  only  dimly  hint  at  in  vague  and 
imperfect  phrases,  but  even  the  obscure  twilight  in 
which  we  move  need  not  cause  us  to  doubt  the  reality 
of  whose  vast  proportions  we  can  form  no  conception 
and  whose  outline  we  only  faintly  discern. 


CHAPTER   VII 

SIN 

T  HAVE  said  that  it  was  no  inward  necessity  to 
-^  escape  from  solitude  which  constrained  God  to 
the  task  of  creation,  but  the  impulse  of  a  boimdlcss 
love  to  create  spirits  as  objects  of  His  beneficence. 
But  when  we  contemplate  the  universe  as  we  actually 
know  it,  this  thought  of  the  unselfish  God,  seeking  to 
enlarge  the  sphere  of  happiness  and  creating  those 
who  could  participate  in  His  bliss,  seems  to  receive  a 
violent  contradiction.  For  here,  instead  of  the  sweet 
harmony  of  creatures  wholly  attuned  to  the  will  of 
their  Creator  and  finding  their  highest  beatitude  in 
fellowship  with  Him,  we  behold  a  world  in  arms 
against  its  Maker  and  see  evil  in  all  its  hideous  forms 
abounding  on  every  hand. 

It  is  a  problem  before  which  the  greatest  men  have 
had  to  confess  defeat  when  they  have  sought  for  an 
adequate  solution  of  the  question,  "  How  can  we 
accoimt  for  the  emergence  of  evil  in  a  universe  created 
by  One  who  is  Himself  all- wise,  all-powerful,  and 
holy  ?  '*  Towards  the  close  of  liis  great  work  Micro- 
C9smuSy  Lotze  says  :    "No  one  has  here  found  the 

104 


Sin  105 

thought  which  wcmld  save  us  from  difficulty,  and  I, 
too,  know  it  not."  Yet  we  are  not  without  some 
helpful  suggestions  which,  if  they  still  leave  much 
margin,  as  we  might  have  anticipated,  for  mystery, 
yet  help  to  lift  from  us  the  burden  of  the  irrational. 
The  problem  of  evil  is  one  which  all  philosophers  have 
to  confront,  for  imperfections  and  moral  disharmony 
are  stamped  so  deeply  into  the  fabric  of  life  that  any 
thinker  who  sets  himself  seriously  to  explain  the 
scheme  of  existence  is  forced  to  make  room  in  his 
solution  for  this  tragic  element. 

Yet  sin  is  specifically  a  rehgious  term.  The  moral 
teacher  speaks  of  vice  which  corrupts  the  nature  and 
defies  the  law  of  man's  being.  The  law  is  familiar 
with  crime,  which  violates  its  behests  and  introduces 
a  disturbing  element  into  civic  and  social  life.  But  it 
is  only  theology  that  can  speak  of  sin,  that  regards 
the  disposition  or  conduct  of  the  creature  as  involving 
a  false  and  wrong  attitude  to  God.  And  of  all  rehgions 
Christianity  has  taken  sin  with  the  greatest  serious- 
ness. She  has  not  palliated  it  or  tried  to  explain  it 
away,  she  has  insisted  on  its  heinousness  with  a  power 
that  has  never  been  equalled.  Nothing  can  show 
more  clearly  the  awful  gravity  with  which  she  has 
thought  of  sin  than  the  fact  that  she  regards  the 
extremest  measures  as  necessary  to  overcome  it.  It 
is  in  no  dogmatic  statement  as  to  the  exceeding  sin- 
fulness of  sin  that  its  judgment  is  expressed,  but  in 
the  fact  that  the  death  of  God's  own  Son  was  con- 


io6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ceived  to  be  necessary  to  its  atonement  and  extirpa- 
tion. The  Cross  of  Christ  reveals  to  us  what  God 
thinks  and  feels  about  sin.  This  stem  and  austere 
judgment  of  sin  is  a  high  tribute  to  the  lofty  morality 
of  the  Gospel.  For  the  darker  the  picture  she  draws 
of  sin  the  greater  the  difficulty  she  creates  for  herself 
in  maintaining  her  affirmation  of  the  wisdom  and 
purity  of  God. 

Nothing,  then,  is  more  alien  from  the  Christian 
religion  than  to  make  light  of  sin  or  to  treat  it  in  a 
flippant  and  frivolous  way.  We  must  seek  to  think 
of  it  as  God  thinks  of  it,  and  what  God  thinks  of  it 
we  see  on  Calvary.  We  have  to  recognise  that  it  is 
a  virulent  poison,  utterly  and  irremediably  bad, 
something  not  to  be  treated  with  lenient  indifference, 
but  to  be  pursued  with  alert  and  relentless  hostility. 
But  while  this  is  the  judgment  that  we  pass  upon  sin, 
we  must  beware  of  morbid  exaggeration  on  the  other 
side.  jLdoes  iiot  follow,  because  sin  is  a  rabid  poison, 
that  we_  BpLUst  pronounce  the  same  verdict  on  the 
^Eper  that  we  do  on  sin. 

We  must  beware  of  the  gross  extravagances  with 
which  man's  state  has  too  often  been  depicted.  These 
inevitably  provoke  a  recoil,  and  we  are  suffering  to-day 
from  the  effects  of  the  lurid  pictmres  drawn  by  the 
theologians  of  an  earlier  time.  We  should,  for  example, 
carefully  avoid  the  use  of  such  terms  as  "  total  de- 
pravity." I  am  well  aware  that  this  term  is  explained 
to  mean  simply  that  there  is  no  part  of  a  man  which 


Sin  107 

is  untouched  by  evil,  and  as  so  interpreted  the  state- 
ment becomes  quite  unobjectionable.  But  any  one 
who  will  read  the  language  of  the  older  divines  with 
reference  to  this  subject  will  not  readily  beUeve  that 
this  was  all  that  they  meant  to  assert.  And  it  is 
surely  not  merely  injudicious,  but  positively  mis- 
chievous, to  continue  the  use  of  this  highly  objection- 
able expression  to  cover  what  is  little  better  than  a 
mere  truism.  We  can  speak  of  man's  total  goodness 
with  just  as  much  right  as  of  man's  total  depravity 
in  this  modem  use  of  the  phrase.  In  other  words, 
there  is  no  part  of  man's  nature  that  is  untouched  by 
the  power  of  good.  But  I  do  not  hear  any  of  the 
modern  defenders  of  the  one  phrase  suggest  that  we 
should  adopt  the  other.  Similarly  the  assertion  that 
sin  is  an  infinite  evil  may  be  so  explained  as  to  express 
an  element  of  truth.  But  it  also  I  take  to  be  so  mis- 
leading to  the  plain  man,  and  in  its  obvious  sense  so 
irrational,  that  I  should  banish  it  altogether  from  the 
vocabulary  of  theology. 

The  difficulties  which  the  problem  presents  have 
naturally  led  to  several  solutions.  In  the  first  place 
I  must  mention  those  theories  according  to  which 
sin  does  not  really  exist  at  all.  This  is  a  character- 
istic feature  of  pantheism.  It  is  sometimes  said  that 
pantheism  makes  God  the  author  of  sin.  If  there  is 
notlamg  outside  God,  then  the  evil  in  the  universe 
must  belong~Eb  Him  as  well  as  the  good.  This  criticism 
really  does  not  go  deep  enough,  for  the  pantheist 


io8    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

cannot  consistently  admit  that  evil  exists  at  all ;  it 
is  only  our  finite  point  of  view  which  lends  the  appear- 
ance of  evil  to  what  we  call  sin.  Could  we  rise  from 
our  limited  standpoint  to  behold  the  universe  as  it 
really  is,  we  should  see  that  evil  and  sin  were  mere 
illusion.  This  way  of  escape  is  impossible  to  the 
Christian  who  asserts  the  reahty  of  the  self  and  re- 
fuses to  allow  the  individual  to  be  lost  in  the  whole. 
For  him  evil  is  real,  sin  is  a  terrible  fact.  And  even 
those  who  do  not  share  the  Christian  standpoint  for 
the  most  part  readily  enough  admit  that  evil  cannot 
be  explained  away  any  more  than  the  existence  of 
the  finite  self. 

Many,  again,  deny  all  reality  to  sin  because  they 
deny  the  freedom  of  the  will.  For  them  man  is  a 
mere  machine  who  has  no  part  in  his  own  creation 
or  in  the  environment  into  which  he  was  plunged  at 
his  birth.  Everything  in  him  is  the  result  of  external 
forces,  and  therefore  he  has  no  real  responsibility  for 
his  acts.  Were  this  true,  it  would  be  foolish  to  talk 
about  sin  ;  the  term  would  be  meaningless.  It  would 
carry  us  too  far  to  enter  on  the  tremendous  problem 
of  free-will  and  determinism,  but  the  following  obser- 
vations may  be  made.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  extent 
to  which  the  will  is  free  has  been  largely  over-estimated 
in  popular  belief.  We  are  very  largely  determined 
by  our  ancestry  and  our  environment.  These  create 
the  conditions  in  which  we  have  to  play  our  part, 
they  select  the  field  on  which  we  fight  and  the  foos 


Sin  109 

with  whom  we  have  to  wrestle.  But  they  do  not  do 
everything,  there  is  an  irreducible  element  of  person- 
aUty  which  is  our  very  own. 

There  is  no  fact  of  experience  to  which  the 
testimony  of  consciousness  is  more  explicit  than  the 
fact  that  we  possess  a  certain  measure  of  choice.  If 
it  is  said  that  the  will  follows  the  strongest  motives, 
it  must  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  will  pits 
motives  one  against  the  other  and  shifts  their  balance. 
It  often,  in  fact,  converts  a  weak  motive  into  a  strong 
one,  and  by  identifying  itself  with  this  proves  the 
freedom  with  which  it  exerts  its  choice.  There  is  no 
fact  more  certain  than  this — that  in  the  moment  of 
choice  we  are  conscious  of  our  freedom,  we  are  con- 
scious that  while  we  select  one  motive  we  might  select 
another,  and  after  the  act  has  been  done  we  are  aware 
that  we  might  have  acted  differently. 

If  we  are  absolutely  determined  and  the  will  is  in 
no  sense  free,  we  cannot  account  for  that  feeling  of 
remorse,  to  which  none  of  us  is  a  stranger,  which  tells 
us  that  we  were  not  swept  along  by  forces  we  could 
not  control,  but  that  in  the  guilty  deed  we  identified 
ourselves  with  our  act.  This,  be  it  observed,  is  an 
immediate  and  universal  affirmation  of  consciousness. 
That  there  are  psychological  puzzles  connected  with 
it  no  one  would  deny,  or  that  a  very  strong  case  in 
logic  could  be  made  out  against  the  possibility  of  free- 
will. But  these  difficulties  do  not  warrant  us  in  re- 
jecting that  of  which  we  are. directly  aware,  and  the 


no    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

reality  of  which  is  attested  by  the  existence  of  remorse. 
It  is,  moreover,  a  significant  thing  that  the  most  pro- 
nounced advocates  of  determmism  always  act  as  if 
they  were  free  themselves,  and  mete  out  praise  and 
blame  in  a  way  that  their  theory,  if  it  were  true, 
would  render  absurd. 

Again,  some  virtually  deny  the  real  evil  of  sin  by 
the  assertion  that  sin  is  necessary  to  the  artistic  per- 
fection of  the  universe.  We  must  have  the  dark 
shades  in  our  picture  as  well  as  the  light.  It  is  only 
through  the  contrast  with  evil  that  good  can  be  known 
and  appreciated.  What  seems  to  us  disharmony  when 
viewed  in  itself  blends  into  a  perfect  harmony  when 
we  view  the  Great  Whole.  There  is,  of  couise,  a  sense 
in  which  we  may  speak  of  evil  as  throwing  good  into 
relief  and  bringing  out  its  intrinsic  excellence  more 
sharply  by  contrast,  but  we  have  no  right  to  palliate 
evil  on  this  ground.  Moreover,  are  we  to  carry  this 
moral  difference  into  the  life  of  God  Himself,  and  say 
that  for  His  perfection  and  the  complete  harmony 
of  His  being  evil  is  necessary  to  Him  as  well  as 
good  ? 

Nor  can  we  treat  sin  as  something  merely  negative, 
a  defect  and  nothing  more.  For  many  of  the  forms 
in  which  it  manifests  itself  show  that  it  is  no  mere 
negation  of  good,  but  that  a  positive  heinousness 
attaches  to  it.  The  crimes  which  fill  us  with  horror, 
the  atrocities  that  stir  us  with  indignation  to  the 
depths,  the  insol^ice  which  crushes  man  with  cold 


Sin  1 1 1 

contempt,  the  ambition  that  movee  thi^ough  blood 
to  its  goal  and  counts  nothing  of  the  hearts  it  has 
broken,  and  many  another  form  of  sin  familiar  to  us 
all,  is  not  something  that  can  be  described  by  pale 
negatives,  but  something  which  is  actively  and  aggres- 
sively bad. 

Nor  can  we  rightly  say  that  evil  is  a  form  of  good. 
To  describe  it  as  good  in  the  making  might  be  plausible 
in  a  certain  range  of  instances,  but  this  would  be  quite 
misleading  as  a  general  definition.  Nor  can  we  speak 
of  evil  as  perverted  good.  It  has  often  been  pointed 
out  that  what  drives  the  sinner  to  his  sin  may  some- 
times be  the  sense  of  dissatisfaction  which,  if  he  only 
knew  it,  is  the  cry  of  his  nature  for  God.  And  there 
is  no  doubt  an  element  of  truth  in  this  assertion. 
Nevertheless,  one  would  need  to  be  blind  to  some  very 
patent  facts  to  regard  this  as  accounting  for  more 
than  a  comparatively  small  proportion  of  sin.  Chris- 
tianity, moreover,  will  not  substitute  fine  phrases  for 
brutal  reahties,  but  insists  on  the  hard  fact  that  sin 
must  be  treated  as  the  fundamentally  evil  thing  that 
it  is.  A  man  may  no  doubt  seek  to  still  his  vague 
unrest  in  the  pleasures  of  the  world,  but  sin,  for  the 
most  part,  is  a  much  more  commonplace  thing  than 
that ;  it  is  a  dehberate  quest  for  self-gratification 
rather  than  the  bhnd  plunge  into  the  Infinite,  the 
search  for  a  fuller  and  intenser  hfe  in  God.  I  can 
conceive  a  sin  prompted  by  desire  to  escape  from  the 
cramped  hfe  of  the  finite  self  to  the  intoxicating  sense 


112    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

of  a  larger  experienct.  But  usually  it  is  the  victory 
of  the  baser  over  the  loftier  self. 

We  reach,  then,  the  conclusion  that  sin  is  real,  and 
that  we  can  escape  from  our  difficulty  neither  by 
denying  its  existence,  by  palliating  its  badness,  nor 
by  turning  it  into  a  form  of  good.  And  so  we  return 
to  the  problem  why  in  a  world  governed  by  a  holy, 
aU-wise,  and  all-powerful  God  sin  was  permitted  to 
emerge  at  all.  It  would  be  no  answer  to  say  that  the 
very  conditions  of  creaturely  existence  imply  imper- 
fection. It  is  ob\dous  that  they  do.  What  has  been 
called  metaphysical  evil  must  attach  to  the  whole  of 
created  being.  This,  however,  simply  means  that  the 
creature  must  be  finite,  but  there  is  no  necessary 
connexion  between  Hmitation  of  being  and  sinfulness 
of  character.  It  is  not  sin  to  fall  short  of  a  perfection 
which  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  lies  beyond  our 
reach ;  the  sin  consists  in  the  fact  that  we  do  not 
rise  to  such  perfection  as  lies  within  our  grasp. 

Nor  is  it  the  case  that  our  physical  conditions 
necessitate  the  sinfulness  of  our  career.  It  is  very 
natural  that  such  a  view  should  have  arisen.  It  is  so 
constantly  our  experience  that  the  sensuous  side  of 
our  nature  betrays  us  into  wrongdoing  that  we  readily 
express  the  evil  which  besets  us  in  the  terms  of  a 
conflict  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit.  The  higher 
nature  we  identify  with  our  spirit,  the  lower  with  the 
body.  Our  physical  passions  and  impulses  are  those 
which  seem  to  us  mainly  responsible  for  our  tragic 


Sin  113 

moral  difficulties.  Could  we  only  get  rid  of  this  schism 
in  our  nature,  it  seems  as  though  all  might  be  well. 
We  should  escape  from  the  tyranny  of  matter,  and 
the  spirit  would  wing  upwards  its  unimpeded  flight. 
Yet  when  we  come  to  think  of  it  we  can  hardly  feel 
satisfied  with  such  an  explanation.  Doubtless  it  is 
true  that  many  forms  of  sin  are  of  a  physical  character, 
but  it  would  be  gross  exaggeration  to  apply  this  ex- 
planation to  all  of  them.  There  are  many  forms  of 
sin  that  could  be  practised  just  as  well  by  a  disem- 
bodied spirit.  To  feel  the  emotions  of  anger  and 
hatred,  of  envy  and  jealousy,  of  vanity  and  pride,  a 
bodily  organism  is  not  necessary.  Moreover,  precisely 
the  same  physical  act  may  be  sinful  or  legitimate 
according  to  circumstances.  It  is  perfectly  legitimate 
and,  indeed,  necessary  for  us  to  eat  food,  but  if  our 
food  is  attained  by  theft,  the  eating,  otherwise  legiti- 
mate, becomes  sinful. 

What,  no  doubt,  has  contributed  to  the  widespread 
connexion  of  sin  with  our  physical  nature  is  the 
contrast  drawn  by  Paul  between  the  flesh  and  the 
spirit.  As  all  students  of  PauHnism  know,  one  of  the 
most  difficult  problems  connected  with  its  interpreta- 
tion is  to  fix  the  meaning  attached  by  Paul  to  the 
term  "  the  flesh.'*  After  devoting  much  attention  to 
this  subject,  I  find  myself  unable  to  believe  that 
Paul  meant  to  identify  the  flesh  with  the  body,  and 
on  the  following  grounds.  Paul  includes  among  works 
of  the  flesh  sins  that  are  not  physical  in  their  char- 


114    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

acter,  especially  sins  of  temper.  Secondly,  he  uses 
language  with  reference  to  the  body  which  he  could 
not  use  with  reference  to  the  flesh.  For  him  the  flesh 
is  so  irretrievably  evil  that  there  is  nothing  for  it  but 
to  be  crucified  and  completely  aboUshed ;  but  the 
body,  which  has  been  the  servant  of  sin,  may  equally 
become  the  servant  of  righteousness.  It  is  the  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  its  glorification  redemption 
finds  its  completion.  Again,  it  was  a  commonplace 
with  him  that  even  while  a  man  was  in  the  body  he 
might  have  ceased  to  be  in  the  flesh.  Lastly,  if  the 
body  is  the  evil  power  in  man  and  the  source  of  sin, 
the  natural  inference  would  be  that  it  should  be 
crushed  into  submission  by  the  strictest  austerity. 
But  Paul  did  not  look  for  salvation  from  sin  along  the 
lines  of  asceticism  and  starvation  of  physical  impulses, 
but  expected  it  to  come  through  faith  in  Christ.  And 
I  have  long  felt  that  a  strict  logic  would  not  have 
stopped  short  with  asceticism.  Physical  death  would 
have  been  heralded  as  the  way  of  salvation,  and  there 
would  have  been  no  reason  why  the  extreme  step  of 
suicide  should  have  been  regarded  as  reprehensible. 
Accordingly  I  do  not  fimd  it  possible  to  agree  with 
those  who  claim  the  apostle  as  teaching  that  the  seat 
of  sin  is  to  be  found  in  the  body. 

If,  then,  the  seat  of  sin  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the 
body,  where  are  we  to  place  it  ?  We  must  strike  in- 
ward and  find  it  at  the  very  core  of  our  being.  Sin 
lias  its  roots  in  self-love.     Self-love  is  a  perfectly 


Sin  1 1 5 

natural  and,  indeed,  commendable  quality.  The  will 
to  live,  the  instinct  for  self-preservation,  the  desire  for 
self-gratification  are  implanted  in  us  by  Nature,  which 
thus  secures  the  preservation  of  the  species  as  well  as 
of  the  individual.  It  is  therefore  not  wrong  in  itself. 
But  it  may  readily  become  wrong  if  it  collides  with  a 
higher  law.  Now  in  its  essence  sin  arises  from  the 
coUision  of  self-love  with  the  will  of  God.  We  choose 
that  which  tends  to  gratify  self  even  when  it  involves 
rebellion  against  our  heavenly  Father.  It  is  self- 
assertion  against  God,  of  the  creature  against  the 
Creator,  of  the  child  against  the  parent.  The  will  of 
man  clashes  with  the  will  of  God. 

The  question  arises,  then.  Why  is  it  that  in  God's 
creatures  there  should  be  this  disharmony  with  the 
Creator's  will  ?  And  this  problem  is  best  discussed  in 
connexion  with  the  whole  subject  of  the  origin  of  sin. 
It  has  been  usual  to  suppose  that  man's  present  con- 
dition testifies  to  the  entrance  of  something  abnormal 
into  the  Hfe  of  the  race.  It  is  thought  to  exhibit  the 
marks  of  disorder  and  ruin.  Some  sinister  influence 
has  poisoned  the  spring  at  its  source,  and  his  history 
has  been  set  on  lines  other  than  those  originally  in- 
tended. Man  was  made  upright  at  the  first,  but  his 
nature  has  been  warped,  and  the  whole  development 
has  proceeded  along  false  lines.  Such  is  the  ecclesi- 
astical doctrine  of  the  Fall,  which  has  seemed  to  many 
theologians,  in  spite  of  its  great  difficulties,  to  be 
demanded  by  the  explicit  teaching  of  Scripture.    The 


ii6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Biblical  evidence  on  which  it  is  beheved  to  rest  is  the 
story  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Paradise,  and  the  references 
to  Adam  in  Romans  and  i  Corinthians.  It  is,  how- 
ever, thought  to  be  corroborated  by  another  considera- 
tion, namely,  that  the  universality  of  sin  requires 
some  such  event  to  explain  it.  The  assumption  on 
which  this  conviction  rests  is  that  God  cannot  have 
created  man  as  we  find  him — the  tares  in  the  corn- 
field cannot  be  of  His  so\ving. 

With  reference  to  the  story  in  Genesis,  I  would  re- 
mark that  theologians  have  now  generally  surrendered 
much  that  used  to  be  drawn  from  it.  In  the  first 
place,  the  extravagant  language  concerning  the  con- 
dition of  Adam  is  now,  by  common  consent,  abandoned. 
The  best  known,  perhaps,  of  these  exaggerations  is 
South's  saying  :  "An  Aristotle  was  but  the  rubbish 
of  an  Adam,  and  Athens  but  the  rudiments  of  Para- 
dise." No  claims  for  marvellous  intellectual  endow- 
ment are  now  made  for  our  first  parents.  Further, 
many  theologians  would  now  candidly  admit  a  very 
large  parabohc  element  in  the  story.  That  a  few 
thousand  years  ago  the  human  race  came  into  exist- 
ence as  described  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
passed  through  the  experience  related  in  the  third,  is 
more  than  they  are  prepared  to  admit  with  their  know- 
ledge of  science  and  of  history.  It  is  clear,  then,  that 
the  foundations  on  which  the  current  doctrine  of  man's 
original  condition  and  his  fall  from  it  repose  are,  so 
far  as  the  narratives  in  Genesis  are  concerned,  in  a 


Sin  117 

very  insecure  condition.  I  would  also  point  out  that 
if  we  isolate  this  narrative  and  seek  to  interpret  it 
without  reading  in  ideas  either  of  later  Jewish  theology 
or  of  the  apostle  Paul,  we  shall  not  find  much  support 
for  the  doctrine  in  question.  There  is  nothing  said 
of  man's  original  righteousness,  nor  is  there  any  hint 
that  a  new  element  emerged  in  the  ethical  constitution 
of  man,  nor  yet  that  this  element  was  transmitted  to 
Adam's  descendants. 

The  question,  however,  must  be  faced  whether  this 
doctrine  is  not  involved  in  the  teaching  of  Paul.  On 
this  I  believe  that  there  is  widespread  misapprehen- 
sion. The  question  is  very  important,  because  at  this 
point  many  beheve  that  the  definite  breakdown  of 
tlie  Pauhne  Theology  occurs.  It  is  not  unusual  to 
hear  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  depends  on  his 
doctrine  of  sin,  that  his  doctrine  of  sin  depends  on 
the  assumption  that  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
hteral  history,  and  that  the  bottom  has  been  knocked 
out  of  this  assumption  by  our  modem  knowledge, 
and  that  consequently  the  Pauline  Theology  collapses. 
I  believe  this  chain  of  statements  to  be  incorrect,  and 
to  rest  upon  serious  misunderstanding  as  to  the 
apostle's  meaning.  At  present,  however,  I  am  con- 
cerned with  his  interpretation  of  the  story  in  Genesis. 

I  freely  grant  at  the  outset  that  Paul  treated  the 
third  chapter  in  Genesis  as  literal  history.  It  would  be 
unreasonable  to  expect  anything  else.  The  difficulties 
that  we  feel  about  it  were  not  present  to  his  mind, 


n8    Chrkt'kmUy :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

and  he  naturally  shared  the  standpoint  of  his  own 
countrymen  with  reference  to  it.  But  this,  so  far 
from  diminishing  the  value  of  his  discussion,  to 
my  mind  only  enhances  it.  For  it  is  a  sign  of  his 
remarkable  insight  into  spiritual  reaUties  that  he 
constructed  his  doctrine  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  in- 
trinsically unaffected  if  we  discard  the  historical 
character  of  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis.  What  in- 
terested him  was  not  historical  details,  but  spiritual 
principles,  and  these  come  clearly  to  light  in  the 
discussion  which  he  gives  to  them. 

In  Romans  v.  12-21  we  have  his  most  exphcit  treat- 
ment of  the  subject.  It  is  true  that  he  deals  with  the 
subject  somewhat  incidentally,  his  chief  purpose  being 
to  set  forth  the  greatness  of  the  redemption  achieved 
by  Christ,  and  this  he  does  by  a  parallel  between 
Christ  and  Adam,  which  develops  into  a  contrast. 
It  would,  however,  be  a  mistake,  in  my  judgment,  to 
imagine  that  the  incidental  character  of  the  exposition 
warranted  us  in  inferring  that  his  doctrine  of  Adam 
constituted  an  unimportant  element  in  his  teaching. 
I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  fundamental 
in  his  theology.  The  passage  is  singularly  involved 
and  difficult,  and  this  makes  it  hard  to  be  sure  of  its 
precise  interpretation.  We  gain  assistance  in  our 
attempt  to  understand  it  from  our  general  recon- 
struction of  Paul's  theology,  but  especially  from  the 
parallel  that  he  draws  between  Christ  and  Adam. 
Detaik  which  ar«  obscur«  in  one  case  sometimes  grow 


Sin  119 

much  clearer  through  comparison  with  the  other  side 
of  the  parallel.  It  would  involve  minute  exegetical 
discussion,  such  as  would  be  quite  unsuitable  for  a 
volume  of  this  kind,  to  vindicate  the  conclusions  to 
which  a  study  of  this  passage  has  brought  me.  As, 
however,  I  do  not  wish  to  state  results  without  some 
indication  of  processes,  I  shall  try  to  suggest  some 
reasons  for  the  conclusions  presented. 

We  are  struck  at  the  outset  by  the  fact  that  Paul 
appears  to  trace  the  physical  death  of  mankind  both 
to  the  sin  of  Adam  and  to  the  sin  of  all.  He  says 
that  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  then, 
through  the  agency  of  sin,  death  followed,  then  death 
passed  on  to  all  men  because  all  sinned.  At  first  sight 
it  seems  that  Paul  does  nothing  more  in  this  passage 
than  assert  that  sin  and  death  gained  their  foothold 
in  the  world  through  the  act  of  Adam,  and  that  the 
death  of  each  individual  was  due,  not  to  the  sin  of 
Adam,  but  to  his  own  personal  sin.  I  do  not  believe, 
however,  that  this  is  what  Paul  meant.  It  does  not 
correspond  to  notorious  facts,  since  it  does  not  cover 
the  case  of  infants  who  die  before  they  attain  a  con- 
dition of  moral  responsibility.  The  tense  of  the  Greek 
verb  employed  also  suggests  that  Paul  did  not  con- 
template a  series  of  acts  lasting  throughout  the  whole 
history  of  humanity  and  repeated  in  the  case  of  each 
individual,  but  a  single  act  taking  place  at  a  definite 
time.  Moreover,  the  parallelism  between  Christ  and 
Adam  bids  us  seek  a  cause  for  universal  death  analogous 


1 20    Christianity  :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

to  the  cause  of  death*s  reversal.  Now,  it  was  not 
Paul's  doctrine  that  the  resurrection,  which  is  the 
reversal  of  physical  death,  came  to  men  in  virtue  of 
their  own  righteousness ;  it  was  achieved  for  them 
through  the  act  of  Christ.  Accordingly  we  expect 
that  the  death  of  all  will  be  ascribed  by  him,  not  to 
the  personal  sin  of  the  individual,  but  to  the  sin  of 
Adam. 

And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  Paul's  language 
elsewhere.  Thus  he  says,  "As  in  Adam  aU  die,  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  Here  a  direct 
relation  is  traced  between  Adam  and  the  fact  of 
universal  death,  which  makes  it  probable  that  we 
must  interpret  in  the  light  of  this  thought  the  passage 
we  are  discussing.  Again,  if  we  look  at  the  way  in 
which  Paul  proceeds  we  shall  see  that  this  interpreta- 
tion is  favoured  by  the  immediate  context,  for  Paul 
goes  on  to  explain  that  while  the  generations  from 
Adam  until  Moses  had  not  been  under  the  Law,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  counted  guilty  of  transgression, 
they  nevertheless  died.  The  obvious  inference  is  that 
since  death  is  due  to  sin,  and  no  sin  was  imputed  to 
them  personally,  their  death  was  due  to  the  sin  of 
Adam.  And  when  we  look  away  from  the  immediate 
context  to  consider  the  passage  as  a  whole,  we  must 
be  struck  by  the  fact  that  the  emphasis  lies  entirely 
on  the  acts  of  Adam  and  Christ.  So  Paul  speaks  of 
the  trespass  of  the  one  and  the  grace  of  the  one  man 
Jesus  Christ,  of  condemnation  resulting  to  all  men 


Sin  121 

through  one  trespass,  and  justification  through  one 
act  of  righteousness,  of  one  man's  disobedience  through 
which  many  were  constituted  sinners,  and  the  obedi- 
ence of  one  through  which  many  shall  be  made 
righteous. 

The  whole  drift  of  the  passage,  then,  as  well  as 
Paul's  allusions  elsewhere,  convince  me  that  he  traces 
the  death  of  all  men  to  the  act  of  Adam.  What,  then, 
are  we  to  make  of  his  assertion  that  death  passed  unto 
all  men  because  all  sinned  ?  If  in  the  same  breath  he 
can  trace  universal  death  both  to  the  sin  of  Adam 
and  to  the  sin  of  all,  the  solution  of  this  apparent 
contradiction  is  to  be  sought  in  the  identification  of 
the  two.  The  sin  of  Adam  is  the  sin  of  all.  Thus 
we  come  by  these  purely  exegetical  considerations  to 
the  old  theological  formula  that  all  sin  in  Adam. 

The  question,  however,  which  immediately  confronts 
us  is  this  :  In  what  sense  are  we  to  assert  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  the  sin  of  all  ?  Frequently  theologians 
have  argued  that  all  men  were  actually  present  in  a 
sense  in  Adam,  and  therefore  participated  in  his  act 
to  a  certain  extent,  on  the  same  principle  on  which 
Levi  is  said,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  have 
done  homage  to  Melchizedek  in  Abraham.  But  obvi- 
ously a  statement  of  that  kind  can  carry  no  conviction 
to  us.  We  cannot  allow  that  unborn  generations  could 
participate  in  and  be  responsible  for  the  act  of  their 
common  ancestor.  There  would,  indeed,  be  much 
more  sense  in  saying  that  Adam  was  responsible  for 


122    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  sin  of  all  his  descendants  than  for  sa5ring  that  all 
his  descendants  participated  in  his  sinful  and  guilty 
act. 

I  believe  that  we  must  seek  for  the  explanation 
along  quite  other  lines.  We  may  illustrate  Adam's 
relation  to  the  race  from  the  position  held  by  the 
leader  of  a  party  who  adopts  a  certain  policy  which 
meets  with  failure.  The  leader  acts  not  in  his  private, 
but  in  a  public  capacity,  and  his  party  is  committed 
by  his  acts.  He  stands  as  the  representative  of  the 
principles  by  which  the  party  is  animated,  and  when 
he  falls  from  power  his  party  falls  with  him.  This 
may  serve  as  a  rough  illustration  of  the  connexion 
between  Adam  and  the  race.  We  understand  why  all 
sin  in  Adam,  if  Adam  acts  as  the  representative  of  all. 
Now,  this  is  meaningless  except  on  the  supposition 
that  he  acts  as  a  true  representative  of  humanity. 
Here,  then,  I  am  forced  to  diverge  from  the  usual 
statement  of  the  doctrine,  for  this  rather  implies  that 
there  was  a  marked  difference  between  Adam's  con- 
dition before  his  act  of  transgression  and  his  condition 
after  his  act,  a  condition  in  which  all  his  posterity  have 
shared.  My  own  beUef  is  that  Paul  regarded  the  act  of 
Adam  as  making  no  difference  whatever  to  the  ethical 
constitution  of  man.  In  other  words,  I  interpret  his 
doctrine  that  all  sinned  in  Adam  to  mean  that  the 
act  of  Adam  was  rightly  regarded  as  equivalent  to 
the  act  of  all,  because  it  expressed  a  character  common 
to  himself  and  the  race. 


Sin  123 

Such,  I  believe,  to  be  the  interpretation  to  which 
Paul's  language,  so  far  as  we  have  at  present  stated  it, 
would  most  naturally  lead  us.  And  when  we  consider 
what  he  says  elsewhere  it  becomes  very  difficult  to 
avoid  this  conclusion.  For  any  one  who  will  carefully 
consider  what  Paul  has  to  say  about  Adam  will  be 
struck  by  the  great  difference  between  his  utterances 
and  the  extravagant  descriptions  to  which  I  have 
already  referred.  Here  we  have  no  picture  of  spacious 
intellect  or  assertion  of  moral  grandeur.  On  the  con- 
trary, Paul  carefully  picks  his  terms  in  order  to 
emphasise  the  low  level  of  his  metaphysical  and  ethical 
character.  Adam  became  a  Uving  soul,  whereas  the 
second  Adam  became  a  hfe-giving  spirit ;  the  former 
was  the  natural,  the  latter  the  spiritual  man ;  the 
first  Adam  sprang  from  the  earth  and  was  made  of 
dust,  the  second  Adam  came  from  heaven.  And  not 
only  has  Paul  this  low  view  of  Adam,  but  he  places 
Adam  and  his  posterity  on  the  same  footing.  He  says 
that  "  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,"  and 
"  as  is  the  earthy,  so  are  they  also  that  are  earthy." 

If,  then,  we  assert  that  Adam  is  the  representative 
of  the  race,  not  in  virtue  of  his  distinction  from  it, 
but  of  his  community  of  nature  with  it,  we  must  put 
to  ourselves  the  question.  In  what  does  this  ethical 
identity  consist  ?  I  have  never  been  able  to  reach 
any  other  conclusion  than  this,  that  Paul  considered 
the  flesh  of  Adam  to  be  ethically  constituted  as  our 
own.    I  have  already  discussed' and  set  aside  the  view 


124    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

that  when  Paul  spoke  of  the  flesh  he  meant  the  body. 
What  he  did  mean  by  it  is  a  very  difficult  question. 
We  may  say,  however,  that  in  its  specific  sense  it  is 
substantially  identical  with  what  we  call  the  carnal 
nature.  It  stands  for  all  those  quaUties  wdthin  us 
which  are  in  antagonism  to  God  and  to  righteousness. 
Now  in  ordinary  experience  the  flesh  is  universally 
sinful,  hence  Paul  speaks  of  it  as  "flesh  of  sin." 
When  the  Law  comes  to  a  man  the  sin  that  is  latent 
within  him  springs  up  into  Hfe  and  becomes  the 
dominating  power  within  him.  Of  these  three  ele- 
ments— the  flesh,  the  law,  and  sin — the  two  latter 
were  present  in  Adam.  He,  too,  was  under  the  com- 
mandment, and  in  his  case  also  sin  sprang  into  Ufe. 
It  is  not  an  unnatural  inference  that  in  his  case  also 
the  sinful  flesh  was  present,  and  that  thus  his  expeii- 
ence  coincided  with  the  experience  repeated  in  the 
individual. 

What,  then,  does  the  act  of  Adam  become  as  thus 
interpreted  ?  It  becomes  a  representative  act ;  it  is 
not  the  caprice  of  an  individual  choice,  that  might 
conceivably  have  been  different,  with  which  we  have 
in  this  case  to  do.  It  would  obviously  be  difficult  to 
defend  the  treatment  of  such  an  act  as  involving  aU 
mankind  in  sin.  It  is  rather  an  act  in  which  the  whole 
moral  character  of  the  race  stands  revealed.  Just 
because  Adam  is  a  sample  of  humanity  his  act  is 
critical.  It  reveals  man's  sinful  nature,  and  shows 
that  under  the  stimulus  of  law  transgression  inevi- 


Sin  125 

tably  follows.  The  sin  of  all  in  Adam  thus  receives  a 
worthy  meaning  quite  different  from  the  paltry  ideas 
that  have  been  popularly  associated  with  it.  If,  then, 
I  am  right  in  thus  interpreting  Paul,  man  came  into 
being  with  a  sinful  nature  which  w^oke  to  rebellion  at 
the  touch  of  the  law.  Till  the  law  came  he  was  in- 
nocent, but  once  there  dawned  upon  him  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  moral  order  the  life  of  innocence  was 
broken  up,  the  sinful  nature  found  expression  in  the 
act  of  trespass,  and  innocence  gave  place  to  guilt. 
And  as  God  looked  upon  it  He  saw  the  w^hole  character 
of  humanity  clearly  displayed,  pronounced  all  men 
sinners,  and  imposed  the  penalty  of  physical  death. 

It  wiU  now  be  clear,  I  hope,  that  the  whole  of  this 
great  construction,  while  it  is  formally  associated  with 
the  story  of  Adam,  is  really  independent  of  it.  For 
Paul's  interest  is  not  historical,  but  ethical  and  psycho- 
logical. At  whatever  point  we  place  the  origin  of  the 
human  race,  or  whatever  name  we  might  give  to  the 
first  man,  the  central  truth  which  Paul  affirms  re- 
mains. We  cannot  now,  perhaps,  draw  sharp  lines 
of  demarcation  and  say,  Here  the  non-moral  passes 
into  the  moral,  here  the  sinfulness  latent  in  the  nature 
finds  expression,  and  innocence  passes  over  into  guilt. 
To  the  eye  of  God  things  are  not  blurred  and  in- 
distinct as  they  are  with  ourselves. 

So  far,  then,  I  have  sought  to  interpret  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  sin  and  show  that  it  has  been  commonly 
misunderstood.    The  apostle  gives  no  countenance  to 


126    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  T'^uth 

the  view  that  the  first  act  of  tranagression  effected  a 
fundamental  change  in  man's  ethical  constitution. 
The  sinful  act  was  the  outcome  and  expression  of  a 
sinful  nature.  It  was  a  critical  act  in  more  senses 
than  one,  but  not  critical  in  the  sense  that  it  intro- 
duced a  new  element  into  human  nature. 

Not  only,  however,  is  the  doctrine  as  commonly 
presented  out  of  harmony  with  Paul's  real  meaning, 
but  it  is  exposed  to  other  serious  objections.  In  the 
first  place,  we  have  the  dif&culty  of  accounting  for  a 
first  sin  occurring  at  all  in  the  case  of  a  sinless  being. 
We  cannot  see,  on  the  one  hand,  how  such  a  being 
would  of  his  own  accord  fall  into  sin.  Why  should  he 
do  something  so  abnormal,  so  contrary  to  the  whole 
law  of  his  nature  ?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are 
in  no  better  position  if  we  assume  that  the  temptation 
came  from  without.  This  in  a  way  increases  rather 
than  mitigates  the  difficulty,  for  now  we  have  two 
problems  to  solve  rather  than  one.  If  we  take  back 
the  origin  of  human  sin  to  the  soUcitations  of  a  super- 
natural power,  we  have,  first  of  all,  to  account  for  the 
evil  qualities  of  the  tempter,  who  is  also  a  creature  of 
God.  We  do  not  get  rid  of  our  perplexity  by  pushing 
it  a  stage  further  back.  And  in  addition  to  this  we 
have  still  the  problem  how  an  external  soHcitation 
can  have  met  with  a  response  m  a  sinless  being.  If 
sin  came  from  without,  there  must  have  been  some 
element  in  man  to  which  it  appealed. 

In  the  next  place  we  have  the  difficulty  of  imagining 


Sin  127 

that  an  act,  however  critical,  should  have  such  stu- 
pendous consequences.  It  might,  no  doubt,  be  urged 
that  this  is  by  no  means  unexampled.  A  few  inches 
may  make  all  the  difference  in  the  determination  of  a 
river's  course.  It  may  be  just  this  side  or  just  the 
other  side  of  the  watershed,  and  these  few  inches 
determine  whether  it  is  one  country  or  another  that 
is  to  be  served  by  its  waters.  But  this  problem  is 
much  more  complex,  for  it  is  not  the  history  of  an 
individual,  but  the  history  of  humanity  with  which 
we  are  deahng.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  first  man 
made  a  false  start.  We  can  understand  how  that 
might  affect  his  whole  future ;  it  might  give  a  sinful 
bias  to  the  whole  of  his  life.  But  we  have  to  account 
for  a  law  affecting  the  whole  of  humanity,  and  we 
must  seek  for  an  explanation  of  the  universal  sinfulness 
of  mankind. 

We  might  be  carried  part  of  the  way  by  a  reference 
to  the  power  of  example  without  affirming  any  change 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man.  The  first  man  be- 
coming himself  a  sinner  might  corrupt  others  by  his 
evil  example,  and  so  all  might  grow  up  to  imitate  the 
evil  actions  of  those  about  them.  We  have,  of  course, 
to  recognise  that  there  is  no  such  thing  in  life,  as  we 
know  it,  as  an  individual  isolated  from  a  social  en- 
vironment, and  this  evil  effect  of  environment  no 
doubt  accounts  for  much  of  the  actual  sin  of  the  world. 
But  a  very  slight  reflection  will  show  us  that  such  a 
view  would  be  too  superficial.    In  the  first  place,  it 


128    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

would  by  no  means  follow^  that  evil  example  would 
inevitably  be  imitated.  In  the  case  we  are  supposing 
the  ethical  quality  of  each  mdividual  remains  un- 
affected by  the  act  of  the  first  man,  and,  since  that 
ethical  character  was  in  his  case  originally  sinless,  we 
must,  on  the  hypothesis  we  are  now  considering,  affirm 
a  similar  natural  sinlessness  for  his  successors.  But 
on  such  a  theory  it  is  obvious  that  we  have  no  right 
to  anticipate  that  the  e\dl  example  would  be  followed 
in  every  instance.  One  might  rather  cinticipate  quite 
the  opposite.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  a  reference  to  the 
power  of  example  does  not  carry  us  far  enough.  For 
we  can  with  certainty  predict  of  each  individual  that 
as  he  comes  to  years  of  moral  discernment  the  virus 
of  sin  will  inevitably  reveal  itself  in  him.  It  is  accord- 
ingly useless  to  appeal  to  a  factor  which  is  so  inade- 
quate to  explain  the  phenomena.  We  are  dealing 
here  with  a  universal  law,  and  we  can  argue  infallibly 
from  the  invariable  emergence  of  sin  in  human  life  to 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  human  nature.  This  hypo- 
thesis accordingly  must  be  set  aside  as  insufficient. 

The  common  doctrine  of  original  sin  also  decisively 
recognises  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  this  explanation. 
It  emphasises  very  strongly  that  sin  is  a  law  of  man's 
being,  that  it  is  woven  into  the  texture  of  his  nature, 
that  as  soon  as  the  stage  of  responsibility  is  reached 
in  each  individual  it  is  invariably  manifested  in  smful 
acts.  But  it  accoimts  for  this  universal  sinfulness  of 
mankind  not  as  an  original  quality  of  human  nature, 


Sin  129 

but  as  one  introduced  into  it  through  the  act  of  a 
single  individual.  He  did  not  merely  set  a  bad  ex- 
ample, but  he  fundamentally  changed,  and  changed 
for  the  worse,  the  character  of  the  race.  That  a  single 
act  should  have  such  far-reaching  consequences  is, 
I  have  already  said,  hard  to  believe,  but  the  credibihty 
of  it  is  still  more  diminished  when  we  try  to  think 
out  the  process.  Ordinarily,  I  suppose,  it  would  be 
explained  in  this  way.  The  first  act  of  transgression 
vitiated  the  moral  nature  of  the  first  man.  He  handed 
on  to  his  descendants  a  character  irretrievably  dam- 
aged, so  that  none  of  them  have  the  option  which  he 
had  before  his  transgression  ;  all  are  inevitably  doomed 
to  sin  in  consequence  of  his  act.  Two  difficulties  emerge 
here.  The  first  is  as  to  the  change  thus  effected  in  the 
character  of  the  first  man,  the  other  touches  the  trans- 
mission to  his  descendants  of  the  vitiated  nature.  To 
the  first  of  these  I  have  already  alluded,  but  the  diffi- 
culty attached  to  the  second  is  far  greater. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  invoke  heredity  as  the  ex- 
planation, but  heredity  is  itself  an  extremely  difficult 
and  obscure  subject,  as  to  which  eminent  scientists 
assure  us  that  very  widespread  misconceptions  exist. 
We  notice,  of  course,  that  things  tend  to  run  in  fami- 
lies, as  we  say,  that  there  is  hereditary  transmission 
of  qualities  from  parent  to  child.  But  there  is  a 
marked  tendency  among  scientists  to  restrict  the 
scope  of  this  principle  within  much  narrower  Hmits 
than  the  layman  assigns  to  it.     We  have  here  the 


ijo    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

following  points  to  observe.  First,  the  question  of 
original  sin  touches  not  simply  the  physical,  but  the 
spiritual  side  of  man.  Secondly,  how  far  can  the 
principle  of  heredity  cover  both  of  these  factors  ? 
Thirdly,  with  what  confidence  may  w^e  beUeve  that 
heredity  is  able  to  respond  to  the  task  that  is  here 
thrown  upon  it  ?    I  begin  with  the  last  of  these. 

Most  of  us  are,  perhaps,  familiar  with  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  great  controversy  in  the  ranks  of  experts 
as  to  the  transmission  by  heredity  of  acquired  char- 
acteristics. The  individual  may  transmit  to  his 
descendants  physical  quahties  that  were  bom  with 
him  ;  but  if  he  subsequently  acquires  a  characteristic, 
it  is  believed  by  an  influential  school  of  biologists  that 
he  cannot  hand  this  on  to  his  descendants.  This  is, 
of  course,  a  matter  for  the  experts,  and  it  would  be 
absurd  for  any  one  who  has  no  competence  in  such 
matters  to  express  any  opinion.  But  the  bearing  of 
the  dispute  on  our  problem  is  obvious.  Even  granting 
the  large  assumption  that  the  first  man's  nature 
acquired  these  new  characteristics,  there  is  very  grave 
doubt  whether  such  acquired  characteristics  could  be 
transmitted  to  his  descendants  by  heredity.  But 
granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  they  could, 
we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of  our  difiiculties.  For 
it  is  the  physical  quahties  which  are  thus  transmitted, 
whereas  our  question  has  even  more  to  do  with  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  change.  No  doubt  the  physical 
counts  for  a  good  deal.    The  man  who  said  that  he 


Sin  131 

found  it  easier  to  get  the  devil  out  of  his  heart  than 
his  grandfather  out  of  his  bones  embodied  in  a  crude 
epigram  an  element  of  truth.  The  physical  nature 
often  accounts  for  much  in  this  respect,  but,  as  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  it  does  not  account  for  every- 
thing, nor,  indeed,  for  the  most  vital  things.  The  seat 
of  sin  is  not  in  the  body,  but  in  the  spirit,  and  it  may 
be  gravely  questioned  whether  heredity  helps  us  in 
the  slightest  here.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  the 
thorny  discussion  of  traducianism  and  creationism, 
but  a  word  or  two  is  inevitable  at  this  point.  Theo- 
logians have  been  spht  into  hostile  camps  on  the 
question  of  the  origin  to  be  assigned  to  the  spiritual 
part  of  the  individual.  The  traducianists  conceived 
it  to  be  propagated  like  the  body,  the  creationists 
regarded  each  spirit  as  the  direct  and  immediate 
creation  of  God.  A  third  possible  view  which  has  been 
held  by  some  eminent  Christian  theologians,  notably 
by  Origen  and  Julius  Miiller,  is  the  theory  of  pre- 
existence.  The  complexity  of  the  problem  is,  of  course, 
increased  by  the  extremely  intimate  relations  between 
body  and  spirit.  Nevertheless,  I  believe  that  the  great 
majority  of  theologians  at  the  present  day  would  de- 
cidedly reject  the  view  that  the  spirit  is  propagated 
along  with  the  body.  The  coarse  materialism  of  such 
a  conception  is  quite  alien  from  our  more  refined  way 
of  looking  at  things.  It  is  therefore  very  hard  to  say 
how  the  act  of  the  first  ancestor  could  have  affected 
at  all  directly  the  spiritual  nature  of  his  descendants. 


132    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

If  neither  example  nor  heredity  suffice  as  the  ex- 
planation, to  what  are  we  driven  ?  A  possible  view 
would  be  to  regard  the  depravity  of  the  race  as  due 
to  the  mere  determination  of  God,  who  visited  the 
original  transgression  with  this  consequence.  This, 
however,  while  logically  possible,  is  surely  morally 
unthinkable.  That  God,  who  loathes  and  hates  sin, 
should  dehberately  set  Himself  to  pervert  human 
character  in  the  way  described  would  be  something 
wholly  unworthy  of  Him. 

Accordingly  we  seem  to  be  driven  back  to  the  view 
of  Paul  that  the  initial  transgression  was  the  conse- 
quence and  not  the  cause  of  human  sinfulness.  No 
doubt  the  reluctance  to  admit  this  has  been  largely 
due  to  the  consequences  which  it  is  supposed  to  in- 
volve. It  is  often  thought  that  with  the  disappearance 
of  the  usual  doctrine  of  sin  the  doctrine  of  the'  Atone- 
ment also  disappears.  This,  however,  is  incorrect. 
The  need  of  redemption  rests  not  upon  the  hypothetical 
first  sin,  but  upon  the  universal  dominion  of  sin  in 
human  hfe.  The  urgent  question,  it  is  well  said,  is 
not  how  sin  came  into  the  world,  but  how  we  can  get 
it  out,  and  this  practical  question  remains,  whatever 
conclusion  we  reach  on  the  speculative  problem. 

Another  difficulty  is  that  it  is  hard  to  believe  in  the 
sinfulness  of  the  first  man,  since  it  is  supposed  that 
God  would  create  him  sinless.  But  I  would  point  out 
that  the  same  problem  arises  in  connexion  with  the 
individual.    The  innocent  child  comes  to  us  fresh,  we 


Sin  133 

might  say,  from  the  hand  of  God,  and  yet  we  all  know 
that  no  sooner  has  the  age  of  moral  consciousness  been 
attained  than  with  it  there  comes  the  experience  of 
sin.  The  difficulty  is  really  no  greater  in  the  case  of 
one  than  in  the  case  of  the  other.  But  no  doubt  what 
is  in  people's  minds,  further,  is  that  here  there  is 
quite  a  new  beginning,  that  there  were  not,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  child,  antecedents  which  might  explain 
its  fall  from  innocence.  It  is  here,  however,  that  our 
modem  way  of  looking  at  things  makes  a  difference. 
We  do  not  recognise  the  absolute  new  beginning  now 
as  our  predecessors  did.  We  make  room  for  the  evolu- 
tionary theory  of  the  origin  of  mankind.  This  is  not  to 
say  that  Theology  is  pinned  down  to  any  particular 
form  of  that  theory.  All  that  I  mean  is  that  we  must 
leave  room  for  the  view  that  a  long  animal  past  lies 
behind  us.  Now,  this  at  once  throws  a  new  and 
welcome  light  on  several  sides  of  the  problem. 

In  the  first  place  it  provides  us  with  an  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  sin  which,  while  it  may  not  account 
for  everything,  accounts,  nevertheless,  for  much.  We 
see  man  beginning  his  career  with  the  instincts  of 
ferocity  and  cruelty,  greed  and  selfishness  and  cun- 
ning, stamped  deeply  into  his  organism,  transmitted 
to  him  by  innumerable  animal  ancestors.  As  these 
existed  in  the  animal  they  were  not  sinful.  We  cannot, 
without  an  abuse  of  language,  speak  of  the  animal  as 
moral  or  immoral ;  he  is  simply  non-moral.  But  there 
comes  a  time  when  man  appears.    We  perhaps  could 


1 34    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

not  put  our  finger  on  the  fine  line  which  separates  one 
from  the  other,  but  Nature  does  move  forward  at 
times  by  leaps,  and  those  of  us  who  believe  in  the 
ever-present  action  of  the  living  God  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  believing  that,  however  fine  the  line 
might  appear  to  us,  it  was  nevertheless  critical ;  the 
Rubicon  was  irretrievably  crossed — man  starts  on  his 
upward  career.  But  he  starts  heavily  handicapped, 
the  animal  qualities  remain  in  all  their  strength,  and 
all  that  can  be  at  present  pitted  against  them  is  the 
faint  consciousness  of  moral  distinction  which  has  just 
struggled  to  its  birth.  Yet  in  that  feeble  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  lay  much  of  the  hope  of  man's  stu- 
pendous moral  progress.  We  cannot  wonder  that  the 
weak  moral  consciousness  made  but  Httle  headway 
against  the  overwhelming  mass  of  inherited  impulse. 

But  not  only  does  sin  emerge  with  the  conscious- 
ness of  moral  distinctions,  but,  as  Paul  has  taught  us, 
the  recognition  of  a  moral  order  brings  not  merely  the 
consciousness  of  sin,  but  acts  even  as  an  incitement 
to  its  commission.  For  when  the  impulse  which 
hitherto  has  acted  \\ithout  check  feels  the  sense  of  a 
new  restraint,  the  inevitable  result  is  that  a  feeling  of 
irritation  springs  up  in  man  against  this  unwelcome 
intruder.  The  irksome  restriction  chafes  him,  and 
the  Law  becomes  the  strength  of  sin.  Hence  a  new 
phenomenon  appears.  He  not  only  does  the  same 
acts  as  his  animal  progenitors,  but  he  does  them  \^ith 
a  new  intensity,  and  not  simply  for  the  sake  of  gratify- 


Sin  135 

ing  his  impulses,  but  for  the  sake  of  doing  them,  just 
because  they  are  forbidden  by  his  better  self.  In  other 
words,  we  have  a  new  element  of  rebeUion  appearing, 
the  deliberate  thwarting  of  the  higher  law  by  self-wiU. 
Sin  may  thus  be  regarded  as  on  one  side  an  ana- 
chronism, to  use  a  term  which  has  been  appHed  to  it, 
as  the  survival  from  a  lower  stage  into  a  higher. 
What  was  harmless  and  natural  on  the  animal  plane 
becomes  mischievous  and  wrong  on  the  human  plane. 
We  may  even  say  that  it  is  unnatural,  for  although 
the  instincts  are  there  and  their  gratification  is,  in  one 
sense,  natural,  yet  the  true  destiny  of  man  is  to  live 
in  harmony  with  the  higher  law  of  his  being.  A  differ- 
ence is  made  when  the  physical  elements  in  the  animal 
become  the  physical  elements  in  man,  and  he  violates 
his  own  nature  when  he  subordinates  the  higher  to 
the  lower.  But  it  is  more  than  a  mere  anachronism. 
We  cannot  split  man  into  two  disconnected  parts  and 
treat  either  as  independent  of  the  other.  We  cannot 
adopt  the  maxim  of  some  Gnostics  :  "  The  jewel  is 
imtamished  though  the  casket  lie  in  the  mire."  For 
the  relationship  between  spirit  and  body  is  not  the 
relationship  of  jewel  and  casket.  There  is  a  mutual 
interpenetration  of  the  two,  and  the  self  as  we  know 
it  is  not  spirit  which  has  a  body,  but  a  combination 
of  the  two.  If  a  man  gets  drunk,  it  might  be  argued 
that  he  is  seeking  simply  a  physical  gratification  in 
which  his  spiritual  part  does  not  participate.  But 
that  is  incorrect.     The  gratiiEication  which  his  body 


136    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

enjoys  is  his  gratification ;  it  is  something  in  which 
the  whole  self  participates. 

It  may,  of  course,  be  questioned  whether  this  gives 
a  sufficient  account  of  sin.  I  have  already  pointed 
out  that  the  seat  of  sin  is  not  in  the  body,  and  that 
many  sins  are  entirely  independent  of  a  physical 
organisation.  It  might  accordingly  be  argued  that, 
while  the  animal  passions  derived  from  our  prehuman 
past  explain  our  physical  sins,  there  is  much  which 
they  do  not  explain.  This  may  be  true,  and  I  do  not 
profess  to  give  a  complete  account  of  what  is  probably 
an  insoluble  mystery.  But  if  we  set  ourselves  to  think 
out  what  happens  when  self-gratification  in  the  case 
of  intellectual  and  moral  beings  comes  in  coUision 
with  a  higher  law,  it  is  not  difiicult  to  see  how  several 
other  forms  of  sin  may  arise.  Moreover,  we  must  not 
forget  that  non-physical  sins  as  well  as  physical  have 
their  prototypes  in  the  animal  world. 

Finally,  this  view  is  a  real  help  to  us  when  we  come 
to  consider  the  problem  of  evil  as  it  affects  God.  On 
this  I  have  spoken  in  an  earlier  chapter,  but  it  is 
necessary  to  touch  on  the  question  here,  in  spite  of 
the  repetition  it  involves.  The  old  dilemma  that  God 
is  either  not  good  or  He  is  not  all-powerful  does  not 
now  come  to  us  with  the  same  force.  It  would  be 
hard  for  us  to  understand  how  God  should  create  a 
creature  at  the  human  stage  so  liable  to  evil  that  he 
fell  before  the  first  breath  of  temptation.  But  when 
we  see  that  God  has  dehberately  chosen  to  create  man 


Sin  137 

by  the  method  of  evolution,  that  He  has  worked  by 
development  rather  than  by  sudden  catastrophe,  we 
understand  how  inevitable  it  was  that,  under  these 
conditions,  things  should  have  taken  the  course  they 
did.  The  theory  of  special  creation  may  no  doubt 
seem  preferable  to  some ;  my  own  view  is  that  the 
other  is  the  worthier  way. 

It  may  still  be  urged,  however,  that  evil  first  emerged 
in  the  spiritual  universe,  where  this  explanation  is  out 
of  place,  and  that  we  must,  if  we  are  to  clear  God's 
character,  find  another  way.  I  would  repeat,  in  reply 
to  this,  that  even  God  cannot  have  a  thing  and  not 
have  it  at  the  same  time.  There  is  no  value  in  com- 
pulsory goodness ;  it  can  be  of  value  only  where  the 
will  is  free,  and  therefore  God  had  the  alternatives 
either  to  endow  His  creatures  with  freedom  of  choice 
or  to  create  automata,  or  to  abstain  from  creation  alto- 
gether. To  have  accepted  either  of  the  latter  alterna- 
tives would  havebeen  to  confess  defeat,  to  have  excluded 
the  possibility  of  freely  rendered  obedience,  lest  obedi- 
ence should  be  freely  withheld.  Therefore  He  took 
the  risk  of  failure,  which  was  the  price  of  the  possi- 
bility of  success.  And  since  He  is  not  fickle  or  capri- 
cious, when  He  deliberately  adopted  a  certain  course 
of  conduct  He  had  to  go  forward  with  it  and  accept 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  His  choice. 

It  may  be  urged,  however,  Granted  that  God 
accepts  this  risk,  yet  if  what  you  say  is  true,  the 
method  He  adopted  in  the  case  of  man  involved  not 


138    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

simply  the  risk,  but  the  certainty  of  failure.  And  if 
so,  can  we  really  speak  of  sin  when  the  dice  are  so 
loaded  that  the  game  must  always  be  lost  ?  The  diffi- 
culty is  a  real  one,  and  I  cannot  pretend  to  explain 
why  sin  is  inevitable,  and  yet  man  is  to  blame  for  it. 
But  I  would  point  out  that  precisely  the  same  difficulty 
is  presented  by  our  everyday  experience.  We  all 
recognise  that  sin  is  inevitable  for  every  individual, 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  regard  this  sin  as  blame- 
worthy, and,  with  regard  to  the  single  action,  we  say 
in  each  case.  This  might  have  been  avoided ;  I  am 
to  blame  for  doing  it. 

I  am  conscious  that  what  I  have  said  seems  very 
inadequate,  but  no  one  has  succeeded  in  reaching  a 
satisfactory  answer.  We  are  here  in  a  region  of  con- 
tradictories. Still,  suggestions  may  remain  which  are 
helpful  so  far  as  they  go,  and  I  think  that  the  view 
which  I  have  put  forward  finds  support  in  the  pro- 
found and  far-reaching  words  with  which  Paul  closes 
his  great  discussion  of  national  election  :  **  God  has 
shut  up  all  imto  disobedience  that  He  might  have 
mercy  upon  all." 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DOES  IT  MATTER  IF  THE  GOSPEL  HISTORY 
IS  UNTRUE  ? 

FOR  the  religious  unrest  of  our  age  there  are  not 
a  few  who  are  inclined  to  believe  that  it  is  the 
intimate  connexion  of  Christianity  with  history  that 
is  really  to  blame.  Here,  we  are  told,  is  the  Achilles' 
heel  of  the  orthodox  theologies.  It  is  here  that  they 
lay  themselves  open  to  attack  which  is  likely  to  prove 
fatal.  For  if  we  vitally  connect  the  truths  of  religion 
with  certain  events  that  happened  in  time  and  space 
we  at  once  raise  the  question,  Did  those  events  really 
happen  or  not  ?  And  when  we  raise  a  question  of  this 
kind  we  have  to  settle  it  by  critical  methods,  and  thus 
we  at  once  expose  the  truth  of  our  religion  to  the 
perils  of  historical  research  ;  and  if  we  reach  the  result 
that  the  alleged  events  did  not  happen,  then  it  will 
go  hard  with  the  claim  of  the  religion  to  be  true. 
How  much  better  it  would  be,  we  are  exhorted,  if  we 
dissolved  the  alliance  between  the  Gospel  and  history, 
and  threw  our  stress  on  those  ideas  which  are  inde- 
pendent of  events  in  time  and  space.  With  one  clean 
cut  we  should  escape  the  embarrassments  which  the 
entanglement  imposes  upon  us.     It  is  tempting  to 

»39 


140    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

purchase  freedom  from  entangling  complications,  but 
we  may  buy  our  liberty  at  too  dear  a  price. 

There  can,  indeed,  be  no  doubt  that  from  some 
points  of  view  the  prospect  thus  held  out  to  us  is  an 
alluring  one.  To  soar  away  from  the  dreary  earth 
into  the  rare  atmosphere  of  beautiful  ideas,  to  reach 
that  peaceful  region  where  we  are  no  longer  in  the 
rough  and  tumble  of  historical  controversy,  to  have 
gone  where  critics  cease  from  troubhng,  that  would  be 
a  dehghtful  experience.  How  exhilarating  to  be  borne 
upward  and  upward  on  the  bold,  unfettered  wing  of 
pure  speculation  till  we  have  scaled  the  cloudy  ram- 
parts and  found  ourselves  at  home  in  the  city  of 
eternal  truth ! 

Moreover,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  disadvan- 
tages of  our  alliance  with  history  are  no  figment  of 
the  imagination.  Once  we  have  laid  stress  upon 
historical  events  as  vital  to  our  position,  we  cannot 
warn  the  critic  off.  Where  history  is,  the  critic  has 
the  right  to  come.  If  you  say,  these  facts  must  be 
accepted  as  an  integral  part  of  the  religion,  then  the 
historicity  of  the  facts  is  a  matter  for  investigation 
which  we  have  no  right  to  shirk.  Once  the  question 
has  been  raised,  it  must  be  answered.  And  all  who 
know  anything  of  the  processes  of  historical  research 
are  familiar  with  the  difficulties  and  uncertainties  that 
inevitably  attend  it.  An  event  in  past  history  must 
be  attested  to  u»  by  documentary  evidence.  This 
evidence  must  be  examined  by  the  methods  of  inquiry 


Does  it  matter  if  Gospel  History  is  Untrue  f     141 

appropriate  to  the  subject.  The  documents  must  be 
critically  examined,  the  scholar  must  seek  to  discover 
their  date,  their  authorship,  their  place  of  origin,  and 
whether  they  incorporate  older  documents.  If  he 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  these  older  documents 
are  present,  he  must  seek,  as  far  as  possible,  to  dis- 
engage them  and  restore  them  to  their  original  form. 
If  he  finds  conflicting  versions  of  the  same  event,  he 
must  attempt  by  a  process  of  comparison  to  work 
back  to  the  earlier  stage  of  the  tradition  from  which 
both  originated.  He  must,  however,  not  only  in- 
vestigate the  documents  in  which  the  story  has  come 
down  to  him  ;  he  must  examine  the  intrinsic  credibility 
of  the  story  itself.  He  may  find  that  on  investigation 
it  breaks  down,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  success- 
fully pass  through  all  the  tests  to  which  he  exposes  it. 
Or,  as  is  often  the  case,  he  may  find  that  several 
details  in  the  story  break  down,  but  that  the  story 
itself  in  its  main  outline  remains  unshaken.  Such  an 
inquiry  has  obvious  risks.  If  it  be  free,  and  any  other 
type  of  investigation  is  worthless,  then  it  must  have 
an  open  mind  with  reference  to  its  possible  results. 
The  chance  of  unfavourable  decision  must  inevitably 
be  taken.  Let  us  not  delude  ourselves  with  the  idea 
that  we  can  stop  when  we  are  half  through.  Thorough- 
ness and  fearlessness  must  be  the  badge  of  those  who 
are  servants  of  truth.  Ought  we,  then,  to  listen 
to  those  seductive  voices  that  teU  us  how  much 
better  we  should  be  if  we  would  give  up  troubling 


142    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

about  the  facts  and  place  all  our  emphasis  on  the 
ideas  ? 

I  believe  that  it  would  be  fatal  to  do  so.  We  do 
not  want  the  rehgion  of  cloudland,  but  the  religion  of 
concrete  Hfe,  of  human  experience  and  emotion  based 
solidly  upon  the  earth.  It  is  not  a  new  thing  by  any 
means  to  cut  religion  loose  from  history  and  to  dissi- 
pate the  facts  of  the  Gospel  into  fine  abstract  ideas. 
But  we  ought  not  to  disguise  from  ourselves  that  a 
Christianity  disentangled  from  the  Gospel  facts  has 
ceased  to  be  Christianity  in  any  real  sense  of  the  term. 
There  are  other  rehgions  in  which  ideas  play  the 
supreme  part.  Their  founders  have  been  great  teachers, 
such  as  Zoroaster  or  Gautama.  The  rehgions  they 
proclaimed  or  the  ethical  systems  they  inculcated 
were  quite  independent  of  the  teacher  himself.  He 
was  just  a  prophet,  and  had  the  words  that  he  spoke 
been  uttered  by  others  their  vahdity  would  not  have 
been  in  the  least  affected,  nor  does  any  alleged  event 
in  their  hfe  have  any  vital  relation  to  the  system  they 
founded.  It  is  different  with  Christianity.  It  stands 
or  falls  not  by  the  truth  of  its  ideas  merely,  but  even 
more  by  the  truth  of  its  facts — not,  it  is  true,  by  all 
the  facts  narrated  in  the  Gospel  history.  Many  of 
these  are  not  vital  to  the  existence  of  Christianity, 
even  though  they  may  be  important  in  themselves, 
and  a  Christian  may  be  very  unwilling  to  let  them  go. 
But  there  are  certain  facts  which  are  really  vital,  and 
cannot  be  surrendered  without  a  surrender  di  the 


Does  it  matter  if  Gospel  History  is  Untrue  f     143 

Gospel  itself.  Prominent  among  these  facts  is  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  Person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  and  as  a  corollary  from  that  the  tre- 
mendous significance  of  His  work  in  the  world  culmi- 
nating in  His  death  and  resurrection.  In  other  words 
Christianity  sinks  or  swims  with  the  assertion  that  at 
a  certain  period  of  time  a  human  personality  appeared 
on  the  stage  of  history  and  was  the  incarnate  Son  of 
God.  If  that  is  gone,  there  is  much  that  is  left  which 
is  valuable,  it  is  true.  There  is  left  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  especially  on  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  all 
which  flows  out  of  that.  Whether  He  or  another  spoke 
the  great  moral  and  reHgious  utterances  which  are  to 
be  found  in  our  Gospels,  the  sayings  themselves  abide. 
It  would  therefore  be  incorrect  to  say  that  if  the  view 
of  the  Church  about  Jesus  is  untrue,  then  the  New 
Testament  contains  nothing  worth  having.  But,  all 
the  same,  it  would  cease  to  be  Christianity  as  the  term 
has  come  to  be  understood.  True,  we  should  have  the 
exhibition  of  a  very  elevated  character  in  the  New 
Testament  portrait  of  Jesus.  We  should  have  a  series 
of  religious  aphorisms  and  a  set  of  rehgious  parables 
unrivalled  in  the  literature  of  the  world.  But  we 
should  not  have  the  manifestation  of  God  in  human 
Ufe,  the  supreme  exhibition  of  His  grace  and  forgiving 
love,  the  redemptive  energy,  the  power  for  the  con- 
quest of  sin  and  creation  of  a  holy  Hfe,  which,  if  Chris- 
tianity is  true,  are  present  within  it.  We  must  take 
the  risk  of  an  inseparable  alliance  with  history  if  we 


144    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

do  not  want  the  religion  to  lose  the  qualities  that 
make  Christianity  supremely  precious. 

And  it  would  be  a  short-sighted  policy  for  another 
reason.  We  may  soar  from  the  earth  to  cloudland 
congratulating  ourselves  that  liistory  has  no  wings  to 
follow  us.  But  not  only  do  we  leave  behind  us  at 
history's  mercy  our  most  valuable  possessions  that 
our  upward  flight  may  not  be  impeded,  but  even  in 
cloudland  we  are  not  safe.  For  if  history  cannot  follow 
us,  philosophy  can  and  will.  If  we  say  it  is  no  matter 
whether  the  alleged  events  happened  or  not,  we  are 
no  longer  hit  by  a  demonstration  that  they  never  hap- 
pened at  all,  but  we  have  stiJl  to  run  the  gauntlet  of 
the  criticism  that  the  ideas  the  reHgion  embodies  are 
untrue.  You  stake  your  existence  on  ideas  rather  than 
on  facts,  but  you  are  only  out  of  the  frying-pan  into 
the  fire.  For  when  Philosophy  comes  to  investigate 
your  ideas,  she  is  rather  more  likely  than  not  to  pro- 
nounce them  untrue.  Do  what  you  will,  it  will  prob- 
ably remain  true  till  the  end  of  time  that  the  Cross 
is  to  the  Greeks  fooUshness.  We  shall  be  hke  the  man 
of  whom  Amos  tells  us,  who  from  the  bhstering  heat 
outside  "  went  into  the  house  and  leaned  his  hand  on 
the  wall,  and  a  serpent  bit  him."  For,  after  all,  the 
fact  that  our  ideas  are  very  beautiful  and  comforting 
does  not  prove  them  to  be  true,  and  the  result  of 
jettisoning  the  facts  as  if  they  were  unnecessary  has 
vitally  imperilled  the  ideas.  For  one  of  the  great 
arguments  for  the  truth  of  the  ideas  is  just  this,  that 


Does  it  matter  if  Gospel  History  is  Untrue?    145 

they  are  guaranteed  by  the  historical  facts,  and  if  we 
let  the  facts  go  the  case  of  the  ideas  is  likely  to  become 
parlous  indeed.  What  it  would  be  difficult  for  us  to 
accept  as  true  for  its  own  sake  we  may  confidently 
receive  on  the  strength  of  the  credentials  with  which 
it  comes.  For  example,  a  belief  in  the  love  of  God,  in 
spite  of  its  attractiveness,  is  one  that  it  is  very  difficult 
to  accept  in  face  of  the  pain  and  misery  we  see  every- 
where about  us.  But  the  Christian  appeals  to  history 
to  vindicate  him  in  his  assurance  of  God's  love.  It 
is  because  he  believes  not  simply  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  but  in  the  fact  of  Jesus  as  attesting  the  teach- 
ing, that  his  trust  in  God's  love  is  unshaken.  Many 
would  be  forced  into  pessimism  were  it  not  for  their 
behef  in  Jesus. 

I  do  not  believe,  therefore,  that  this  is  one  of  the 
points  on  which  we  can  compromise.  As  I  have 
already  said,  I  freely  grant  that  there  are  elements 
in  the  Gospel  story  which  Christianity  has  no  vital 
interest  in  asserting.  It  may  have  an  interest  in 
asserting  them,  but  it  is  not  vital.  In  other  words,  if 
they  turn  out  to  be  untrue,  the  truth  of  Christianity 
itself  will  remain  unaffected.  But  there  are  some 
things  which  he  at  the  very  centre  of  the  Christian 
position ;  cut  those  out,  and  Christianity  has  been 
eviscerated ;  its  beating  heart  that  drove  the  tides 
of  Hfe  through  every  member  of  Christ's  body  has 
been  taken  away ;  and  that  which  constituted  the 
very  life  of  the  Church  and  all  its  redemptive  energy 


146    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ceases  to  carry  forward  its  mighty  and  beneficent 
work. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  micommon  to  find  ardent 
Christians  who,  while  they  would  not  dream  of  deny- 
ing the  Gospel  history,  nevertheless  depreciate  the 
importance  of  the  historical  Jesus.  They  throw  such 
stress  upon  the  li\dng  Christ,  with  whom  they  have 
immediate  fellowship,  that  they  grow  indifferent  and 
cold  to  the  life  recorded  for  us  in  the  Gospels.  The 
danger  of  this  attitude  is  that  those  who  yield  to  it 
fashion  a  Christ  after  their  own  fancy,  and  by  so  doing 
impoverish  their  own  rehgious  Hfe.  After  all,  to  be 
quite  honest  with  ourselves,  the  best  way  to  know 
what  the  Hving  Christ  is  will  always,  during  our 
earthly  Hfe,  be  for  us  to  know  what  the  historical 
Jesus  was.  The  story  of  the  kite  that  snapped  its 
string  in  the  endeavour  to  break  away  from  its  control 
and  soar  upward  with  unimpeded  flight,  and  pitched 
headlong  to  the  earth,  contains  a  warning  for  us.  If 
we  chafe  against  history  as  the  cord  which  ties  our 
soaring  spirits  to  the  earth,  we  are  likely  to  find  that 
if  we  snap  our  cord  we  also  may  plunge  downwards 
from  the  heights  it  enables  us  to  attain.  Let  us  hold 
fast,  then,  to  the  hving  Christ,  but  with  equal  firm- 
ness to  the  Jesus  of  history.  When  eminent  rehgious 
teachers  stake  the  truth  of  Christianity  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  rehgious  consciousness,  and  say  that  this 
in  itself  is  enough,  though  criticism  do  its  worst  against 
the  New  Testament,  one  may  well  stand  aghast  at 


Does  it  matter  if  Gospel  History  is  Untrue  f    1 47 

the  recklessness  of  such  a  position.  The  Christian 
consciousness  is  a  very  complex  thing ;  it  is  rooted 
in  certain  historical  facts  guaranteed  to  us  by  the 
New  Testament  history,  and  conditioned  throughout 
very  largely  by  New  Testament  teaching.  Cut  the 
New  Testament  away,  and  sooner  or  later  the  Christian 
consciousness  will  vanish  with  it. 


CHAPTER   IX 

CAN  WE  TRUST  THE  GOSPEL  PORTRAIT 
OF  JESUS  ? 

IN  the  preceding  chapter  I  have  argued  that  Chris- 
tianity differs  from  other  great  rehgions  in  the 
position  which  it  accords  to  its  Founder.  Had  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  been  simply  a  great  teacher,  the  truth  of 
His  religion  would  not  have  been  very  intimately 
connected  with  the  views  that  were  entertained  about 
Him  by  His  followers.  For  then  what  was  all-import- 
ant would  have  been  the  message,  and  the  truth  and 
value  of  the  religion  would  have  been  bound  up  with 
it  alone.  It  would  be  a  matter  of  comparative  in- 
difference whether  the  alleged  author  of  the  teaching 
had  ever  Hved  or  not,  or,  if  he  had  lived,  whether  he 
had  uttered  the  words  attributed  to  him.  The  teach- 
ing would  be  judged  on  its  own  merits.  But  that  has 
never  been  the  position  adopted  by  Christians  with 
reference  to  the  Founder  of  their  religion.  He  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  rehgion.  Elimmate  Him,  and, 
while  much  that  is  precious  is  left,  that  which  is  most 
precious  has  vanished  away.  For  His  greatest  con- 
tribution to  religion  was  not  His  doctrine  of  the 
Fatherhood  of  God,  His  estimate  of  the  worth  of  the 

148 


Can  we  trust  the  Gospel  Portrait  ofjestisf    149 

individual,  His  teaching  about  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
or  anything  that  He  said  at  all.  His  supreme  contri- 
bution to  religion  was  Himself,  His  own  personality, 
what  He  was  and  what  He  did.  We  belittle  Him  when 
we  think  of  Him  as  merely  the  Teacher  or  as  the 
Founder  of  the  religion.  He  is  not  so  much  its  Founder 
as  its  Foundation.  And  if  our  views  of  Him  were  to 
be  radically  changed,  we  should  no  longer  be  Chris- 
tians in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term. 

But  in  our  own  day  the  helpless  perplexity  in  which 
many  are  involved  leaves  little  untouched.  As  it 
affects  our  present  discussion,  it  takes  the  form  of  the 
question.  Did  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ever 
exist,  and,  if  so,  have  we  any  certain  information 
about  Him  ?  Is  the  character  correctly  delineated, 
or  is  it  idealised  by  followers  who  saw  Him  through  a 
glorious  haze  of  reverence  and  love  ?  I  begin,  then, 
with  the  evidence  for  the  existence  of  Jesus.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  worth  while  pointing  out  that  all  expert 
New  Testament  scholars  are  agreed  upon  this  point. 
This  applies  to  those  whose  treatment  of  the  history 
of  Primitive  Christianity  is  of  the  most  radical  and 
negative  kind.  Even  those  who  have  denied  the 
authenticity  of  every  single  book  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment have,  as  a  rule,  refused  to  take  the  further  step 
of  denying  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus.  The 
Dutch  scholar  Loman,  it  is  true,  did  so  at  one  time, 
but  he  subsequently  withdrew  his  denial.  Van  Manen, 
who   also   denied   the   authenticity   of   the   Pauline 


150    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Epistles,  accepted  as  an  historical  fact  the  existence, 
not  of  Paul  only,  but  of  Jesus.  It  must  be  observed 
that  many  of  these  scholars  had  no  prepossessions  in 
favour  of  tradition.  On  the  contrary,  they  broke  \vith 
it  in  the  most  decisive  way,  yet  they  were  convinced 
that  it  was  not  possible  to  eliminate  the  Person  of 
Jesus  from  history. 

I  have  said  that  history  comes  to  U3  through  docu- 
mentary channels,  and  that  criticism  must  begin  by 
testing  the  authenticity  of  the  docimients.  It  would, 
of  course,  be  impossible  to  give  any  full  account  of 
New  Testament  criticism  at  this  point ;  I  must  con- 
tent myself  with  the  following  observations.  I  have 
mentioned  that  there  are  some  scholars  who  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  assert  that  Paul  wrote  none  of  the 
letters  which  have  come  to  us  under  his  name.  These 
scholars,  however,  are  extremely  few,  and  not  one 
of  them  can  be  said  to  belong  to  the  first  rank.  The 
great  names  of  advanced  criticism,  such  as  F.  C.  Baur, 
Strauss,  Keim,  Hoist  en,  Holtzmann,  Pfleiderer,  Lipsius, 
Weizsacker,  Hamack,  Schmiedel,  and  Wellhausen, 
have  had  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  several  of  these  Epistles.  If  any  man  can  read  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians  without 
feehng  that  they  throb  with  the  personality  of  the 
author  and  deal  with  actual  historical  situations  full 
of  actual  human  interest,  he  must  be  gravely  deficient 
in  a  true  feeling  for  history.  Criticism  has,  in  fact, 
steadily  moved  back  towards  tradition,  so  that,  while 


1 


Can  we  trust  the  Gospel  Portrait  of  Jesus  f    151 

Baur  accepted  only  four  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  advanced 
critics  of  to-day  usually  recognise  seven,  several 
accept  nine,  and  some  go  so  far  as  to  admit  ten  of 
these  Epistles  to  be  authentic.  Let  us  see  what  this 
means.  If  we  left  only  Baur's  four  Epistles  standing 
amid  the  wreck — Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians 
— we  should  have  indubitable  evidence  concerning 
Jesus  from  one  who  was  His  contemporary  and  knew 
His  brother  and  His  most  eminent  apostles,  who  was 
at  first  a  fanatical  opponent  of  the  new  movement, 
and  later  became  its  most  powerful  advocate.  His 
letters  attest  the  existence  of  Jesus  and  several  facts 
in  His  career  which  are  frequently  alluded  to  in  a 
quite  incidental  way,  presupposing  that  the  readers 
were  already  famihar  with  some  of  the  details  in  the 
story  of  His  hfe,  death,  and  resurrection.  The  recog- 
nition of  even  one  of  these  Epistles  settles  this  question 
completely.    But  we  are  not  left  simply  to  these. 

The  criticism  which  has  been  busy  with  the  Pauline 
Epistles  has  concerned  itself  also  with  the  gospels. 
Here,  again,  the  return  to  tradition,  while  not  so 
marked  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  has  still 
been  significant.  It  is  true  that  the  tendency  of 
advanced  criticism  is  strongly  to  deny  the  Johannine 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  to  set  it  aside 
as  of  little  value  for  its  information  on  the  facts  of 
Christ's  Hfe.  But  even  here  the  tendency  has  been 
to  push  the  date  of  the  Gospel  back  to  the  early  years 
of    the    second    century — ^roughly    speaking,    half    a 


152    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

century  earlier  than  the  date  to  which  Baur  assigned 
it.  And  the  main  part  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  must 
be  considerably  earlier,  since  their  tradition  is  con- 
stantly presupposed  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  What 
is  known  as  the  Two-Document  Theory  is  now  very 
widely,  though  not  universally,  accepted.  This  theory 
is  that  two  documents  lie  at  the  base  of  our  Synoptists. 
One  of  them  was  either  our  Gospel  of  Mark  or  a  docu- 
ment very  much  like  it.  This  was  employed  by  the 
authors  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels.  That  Mark 
was  the  earliest  of  the  Gospels,  and  was  employed  by 
the  authors  of  the  other  two,  is  the  one  fixed  point 
which  has  been  secured  through  the  long  investiga- 
tions into  the  Synoptic  Problem.  The  question  as  to 
the  other  sources  is  not  answered  with  unanimity,  but 
by  far  the  most  generally  accepted  view  is  that  Mat- 
tliew  and  Luke  employed,  in  addition  to  Mark,  another 
document  which  contained  a  large  number  of  dis- 
courses of  Jesus.  Whether  it  consisted  predominantly 
of  discourses,  or  whether  it  contained  a  considerable 
proportion  of  narrative,  and  whether  it  was  used  by 
Mark  in  the  composition  of  his  Gospel,  are  points  as 
to  which  the  defenders  of  the  Two-Document  Theory 
are  not  agreed.  In  any  case,  we  have  to  allow  for  a 
fairly  compUcated  literary  process  which  must  have 
taken  some  time,  and  although  it  is  not  possible  to 
reconstruct  ^vith  certainty  our  lost  second  source,  yet 
by  a  comparison  of  Matthew  and  Luke  we  can  get 
back  to  a  stage  earlier  than  that  represented  by  either 


Can  we  trust  the  Gospel  Portrait  of  Jesus  f    153 

of  these  Gospels.  Much  of  this  tradition  must,  on 
grounds  of  purely  literary  and  historical  criticism,  have 
taken  shape  while  hundreds  who  had  known  Jesus 
personally  were  still  alive. 

When  we  pass,  however,  from  the  question  of  docu- 
ments to  the  narratives  which  they  contain,  we  are 
led  to  take  a  favourable  view  of  much  that  they  tell 
us.  In  the  first  place,  we  may  note  the  harmony  of 
the  character  which  they  depict.  We  have  a  com- 
bination of  numerous  elements.  In  addition  to  the 
two  main  documents  we  are  obliged  to  postulate  other 
sources  to  account  for  the  matter  that  is  peculiar  to 
Matthew  or  to  Luke.  Yet  we  are  not  conscious  of 
any  sense  of  incongruity  as  we  move  from  section  to 
section  of  the  Gospel  story.  We  cannot  account  for 
the  EvangeHsts'  figure  of  Jesus  as  the  creation  of  un- 
conscious art  or  the  product  of  the  mythicising  faculty 
of  the  human  mind.  For  without  the  concrete  person- 
ality round  which  the  myth  could  grow,  we  should 
have  expected  quite  divergent  representations  to  grow 
up  in  different  circles.  That  several  sources  unite  to 
give  one  portrait  proves  that  they  are  reproducing  the 
same  original,  and  not  leaving  a  fancy  uncontrolled 
by  reality  to  work  its  own  will. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  we  have  not  to  do 
with  unconscious  myth,  but  with  dehberate  invention. 
That,  however,  is  not  possible  for  several  reasons.  The 
best  judges  of  character,  those  who  have  the  widest 
familiarity  with  the  creations  of  human  genius,  unite 


154    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

in  confessing  the  peerless  excellence  of  Jesus  as  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  some  one  sat  down  to  invent  a  figure  of  this 
kind  ?  We  may  well  imagine  what  would  have  been 
the  result.  In  the  first  place,  such  an  artificial  character 
would  have  been  stiff  and  wooden,  it  would  not  and 
could  not  have  moved  with  the  exquisite  grace  and 
naturalness  of  the  central  figure  in  the  Synoptists. 
In  the  next  place,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
there  was  a  transcendent  genius  among  the  early 
Christians  who  was  capable  of  a  hterary  and  psycho- 
logical feat  of  this  kind.  Once  more,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  very  attempt  to  depict  a  perfect  character  from 
imagination  would  have  defeated  itself.  For  we  are 
all  creatures  of  our  own  time  and  nationality,  incapable 
of  breaking  loose  from  the  ideals  which  have  become 
a  very  part  of  us.  Now,  it  would  have  been  inevitable 
in  such  an  attempt  that  those  features  should  have 
been  most  strongly  emphasised  which  were  most  con- 
genial to  its  author's  ideas  of  perfection.  But  ideals 
change  as  we  move  from  age  to  age,  from  country  to 
country,  from  race  to  race,  and  an  invented  figure 
would  have  been  stamped  deeply  with  the  hmitations 
of  his  creator's  age  and  nationality,  ^\ith  his  personal 
predilections  and  prejudices.  But  how  different  it  is 
with  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels.  Perhaps  the  most 
striking  characteristic  of  the  figure  is  its  universality 
— its  timelessness.  He  appeals  to  all  ages  and  is  wel- 
comed in  all  climes ;  everywhere  it  is  felt  that  in  Him 


Can  we  trust  the  Gospel  Portrait  of  Jesus  f     155 

humanity  received  its  supreme  expression,  and  that  He 
embodies  the  perfection  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  ideal. 
Once  more,  the  figure  cannot  have  been  invented, 
since  there  are  elements  in  the  story  which  there  was 
a  great  temptation  to  suppress.  The  early  Christians 
venerated  Jesus  as  Divine,  and  their  temptation  was 
to  suppress  such  elements  as  might  seem  to  a  narrow 
and  timid  faith  to  be  incompatible  with  the  claims 
they  made  for  Him.  But  there  are  several  elements 
in  the  Gospel  history  which  never  could  have  been 
fabricated  just  because  they  created  such  difficulties 
for  Christians.  Such  sayings  as,  "  Why  callest  thou 
me  good  ?  None  is  good  save  one,  that  is  God,"  or, 
"  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?  '* 
or  the  assertion  that  He  did  not  know  the  day  of  His 
Second  Advent,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  any 
Christian  to  invent.  They  would  never  have  empha- 
sised His  human  frailty,  nor  would  they  have  repre- 
sented Him  as  owing  His  baptism  to  John  the  Baptist. 
The  EvangeUsts  had  no  temptation  to  invent  the  story 
that  His  own  family  thought  Him  mad.  And  why 
should  they  have  created  gratuitous  difficulties  by 
their  stories  of  gradual  cure,  or  by  fabricating  as  a 
charge  levelled  against  Him  that  He  wrought  His 
miracles  by  the  help  of  Beelzebub  ?  We  may  be 
thankful,  indeed,  that  these  and  other  elements  have 
been  preserved,  not  simply  for  their  intrinsic  import- 
ance, but  as  guaranteeing  to  us  the  reality  of  the 
personality. 


IS6    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

And  just  as  little  as  imperfect  man  could  have 
created  a  perfect  figure,  so  little  could  he  have  in- 
vented His  teaching.  It  is  quite  easy  to  trace  points 
of  contact  between  that  teaching  and  the  systems  of 
other  masters.  But  what  is  significant  is  not  tlie 
details,  but  the  system  as  a  whole,  and  no  parallel  to 
this  can  be  found  anywhere.  That  teaching  is  not  an 
artificial  combination  of  elements  scraped  together 
from  this  quarter  or  from  that,  it  is  the  expression  of 
the  greatest  religious  genius  the  world  has  known. 

Lastly,  I  \nsh  to  call  attention  to  an  argument 
which  I  stated  in  my  lecture,  "  Did  Jesus  Rise  Again  ?  '* 
This  was  to  the  effect  that  no  Jew  could  have  con- 
cocted the  story  that  the  alleged  Founder  of  his  sect 
had  been  crucified.  I  believe  myself  that  he  would 
not  have  invented  the  story  that  He  had  been  killed, 
but  since  some  scholars  believe  that  the  Jews  had 
developed  the  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah  by  the 
first  century  I  do  not  press  this  point,  though  I  do  not 
share  their  opinion.  Those  who  are  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Dr.  Frazer's  theories  as  developed  in  The 
Golden  Bough  may  be  inclined  to  think  that  heathen 
influence  helped  to  create  the  story  of  the  death  of 
Jesus,  and  some  hasty  and  injudicious  readers  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Dr.  Frazer's  argument 
justifies  them  in  throwing  aside  a  belief  in  the  his- 
torical existence  of  Jesus  altogether.  Dr.  Frazer  is 
nowhere,  I  believe,  so  imconvincing  as  where  he  dis- 
cusses the  Passion  story.    But  in  case  any  who  have 


Can  we  trust  the  Gospel  Portrait  of  Jesus  f    157 

drawn  this  illegitimate  inference  may  read  this  chapter, 
I  put  on  record  a  statement  made  in  his  latest  volume, 
Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris:  "The  historical  reality  both 
of  Buddha  and  of  Christ  has  sometimes  been  doubted 
or  denied.  It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  question 
the  historical  existence  of  Alexander  the  Great  and 
Charlemagne  on  account  of  the  legends  which  have 
gathered  round  them.  The  great  religious  movements 
which  have  stirred  humanity  to  its  depths  and  altered 
the  behefs  of  nations,  spring  ultimately  from  the  con- 
scious and  deliberate  efforts  of  extraordinary  minds, 
not  from  the  blind  unconscious  co-operation  of  the 
multitude.  The  attempt  to  explain  history  without 
the  influence  of  great  men  may  flatter  the  vanity  of 
the  vulgar,  but  it  will  find  no  favour  with  the  philo- 
sophic historian." 

But  while  it  is  conceivable  that  a  Jew  may  have 
devised  the  story  that  the  alleged  Founder  had  been 
put  to  death,  he  could  not  have  asserted  that  he  was 
crucified,  for  crucifixion  was  a  death  which  involved 
its  victim  in  the  curse  of  the  Law.  It  is  incredible 
that  any  adherent  of  the  new  sect  should  have  created 
this  strange  story  of  a  crucified,  and  therefore  accursed, 
Messiah,  and  thus  placed  a  gratuitous  and  almost 
insuperable  obstacle  in  the  path  of  Jews  whom  he  in- 
vited to  accept  His  religion.  And  how  much  assent 
could  He  have  expected  to  receive  from  Gentiles,  to 
whom  the  Cross  was  a  death  of.  infamy,  the  character- 
istic  punishment   of   slaves  ?    We   know  what  the 


158    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Messianic  belief  oi  Judaism  was,  and  from  it  there  can 
never  have  come  the  belief  in  a  crucified  Messiah. 
Only  one  explanation  can  be  given  for  this  abnormal 
development,  namely,  that  death  by  crucifixion  had 
overtaken  One  whom  His  followers  regarded  as 
Messiah,  and  whom,  in  spite  of  it,  they  persisted  in 
regarding  as  Messiah.  Just  as  surely  as  Adams  and 
Le  Verrier  could  infer  the  existence  of  Neptune  before 
it  was  discovered,  from  the  aberrations  of  Uranus,  so 
surely  from  this  strange  deflexion  of  Jewish  Messianism 
we  can  infer  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 


CHAPTER   X 
THE   MIRACLES   OF   JESUS 

IN  the  preceding  chapter  I  have  sought  to  show 
that,  our  enemies  themselves  being  judges,  we 
have  abundant  reason  to  beheve  in  the  historical 
existence  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  we  have  gained 
much  more  than  this  conclusion.  We  have  seen  that 
there  is  good  ground  to  beheve  that  we  have  a  series 
of  documents  written  by  the  most  eminent  of  the 
early  Christian  leaders,  who  had  been  a  bitter  enemy 
and  persecutor  of  the  movement  before  he  became  its 
strenuous  adherent.  These  Epistles  of  Paul  of  Tarsus 
not  simply  abundantly  prove  the  existence  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  but  they  give  us  some  highly  important 
information  about  Him.  For  reasons  that  I  do  not 
now  stay  to  discuss,  they  concentrate  attention  upon 
the  Passion  history,  but  they  have  numerous  incidental 
alusions  which  throw  light  on  the  career,  the  char- 
acter, and  the  teaching  of  the  Founder.  In  these 
respects,  however,  we  are  far  better  informed  in  the 
narratives  that  compose  our  Synoptic  Gospels,  narra- 
tives which  are  early  in  date  and  contain  many  things 
which  there  was  no  temptation  to  invent.  Hence  we 
secure  not  Sxmply  the  bare  historicity  of  a  Messianic 

^59 


i6o    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Leader  and  the  belief  that  His  career  cuhninated  on 
the  Cross,  but  we  have  a  large  amount  of  information 
which  the  vast  majority  of  critics  who  are  bound  by 
no  adherence  to  tradition  would  admit  to  be  genuine 
historical  reminiscence. 

These  documents,  however,  are  viewed  with  reserve 
by  a  large  number  of  modem  scholars,  because  they 
contain  narratives  of  miraculous  events.  The  modem 
mind  has  largely  ceased  to  believe  in  miracles,  and  it 
is  not  unnatiural  that  the  scepticism  entertained  with 
reference  to  miracles  in  general  should  be  extended 
to  the  Gospel  history.  Accordingly  we  are  confronted 
at  this  point  with  the  problem  presented  by  these 
narratives.  At  an  earher  period  it  was  usual  to  base 
the  defence  of  Christianity  very  largely  upon  the 
miracles.  Now,  many  feel  them  to  be  a  hindrance  to 
beUef  rather  than  a  help.  Perhaps  we  ought  not  to  be 
so  timid  in  our  apologetic.  It  is  true  that  we  do  not 
suspend  the  truth  of  Christianity  by  this  single  argu- 
ment ;  but  miracles  have  still  their  place  in  the 
evidence.  Their  relation  to  Christianity  is  twofold. 
One  miracle,  at  least,  is  an  integral  part  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  while  it  is  at  the  same  time  an  important 
element  in  the  proof.  But  if  miracles  are  used  to 
prove  Christianity,  it  may  also  be  said  that  the  char- 
acter of  Christianity  makes  its  miracles  more  credible. 
Nor  is  this  an  argument  in  a  circle.  If  it  were  said : 
We  beheve  in  the  miracles  because  they  are  a  part  of 
Clu-istianit>%  and  proceeded :    We  believe  in  Chri»- 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  i6i 

tianity  because  it  is  demonstrated  by  the  miracles, 
such  an  argument  would  be  circular,  and  therefore 
worthless.  But  really  the  case  is  quite  different.  Both 
positions  rest  upon  independent  proof — Christianity 
on  other  proof  than  miracles,  and  miracles  on  the 
testimony  to  their  actual  occurrence.  But  the  inde- 
pendent demonstration  is  confirmed  in  each  case  by 
the  other.  If  Christianity  is  true,  the  Christian 
miracles  become  more  credible,  for  they  harmonise  so 
perfectly  with  the  religion,  and  find  in  it  a  worthy 
justification ;  and  if  the  miracles  are  true,  we  have  a 
valuable  endorsement  of  the  claim  of  Christianity  to 
be  a  supernatural  revelation.  It  will  be  convenient, 
however,  to  speak  of  the  evidence  for  the  miracles  at 
this  point ;  for  unquestionably,  if  their  historical 
character  can  be  estabhshed,  they  constitute  a  strong 
presumption  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

The  first  consideration  to  which  I  would  draw  atten- 
tion is  that  critics  are  now  generally  prepared  to 
admit  a  larger  element  of  fact  in  narratives  which  lie 
outside  the  range  of  common  experience.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  with  the  narratives  of  heahng, 
which  are  now  regarded  as  historical  in  the  main, 
though  the  incidents  are  not  treated  as  miraculous. 
This  appHes  also  to  the  cure  of  those  who  are  spoken 
of  as  demoniacs  in  the  Gospel  narrative.  Not,  of 
course,  that  those  who  reject  miracles  would  beheve 
in  demon-possession,  but  thajt  they  would  treat  the 
maladies  which  they  regard  as  thus  incorrectly  diag- 

M 


l62    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

nosed  by  the  evangelist  as  real  maladies  specially 
susceptible  to  mind-cure.  Our  increasing  recognition 
of  what  we  commonly  call  the  action  of  mind  on 
matter  has  made  it  possible  for  them  to  believe  in 
much  which  their  predecessors  would  have  scouted 
without  hesitation.  It  is  quite  possible  that  ere  long 
these  concessions  may  be  extended  to  other  miracles. 
Yet  it  is  questionable  whether  extension  along  these 
lines  will  ever  cover  the  whole  of  the  cases  with  which 
we  have  to  deal.  What  attitude,  then,  are  we  to  take 
up  with  reference  to  the  miracles  strictly  so  called  ? 

At  the  outset  it  is  necessary  to  insist,  because  it  is 
often  ignored,  that  to  justify  beUef  in  a  miracle  the 
evidence  needs  to  be  exceptionally  strong.  It  is 
sometimes  said  that  if  we  refuse  to  beheve  in  miracles, 
we  might  just  as  well  refuse  to  believe  in  any  history. 
But  the  fact  is  that  when  we  read  narratives  of  miracles 
in  secular  historians  we  instinctively  and  without  any 
hesitation  do  disbeheve  them ;  while,  apart  from 
grave  reasons  to  the  contrary,  we  accept  the  account 
they  give  us  of  ordinary  events.  And  rightly,  for  we 
feel  that  we  need  something  more  than  mere  assertion 
to  warrant  our  beUef.  The  evidence  is  strong  enough 
to  bear  the  weight  of  events  which  do  not  diverge 
from  the  order  of  Nature,  but  under  the  strain  of 
miracles  it  hopelessly  breaks  down.  And  we  cannot 
object  to  the  demand  that  the  evidence  for  the  Chris- 
tian miracles  should  be  very  strong  and  satisfy  very 
rigorous  tests.     Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  163 

within  the  last  fifty  years  the  prejudice  against  any 
belief  in  miracles  has  become  much  more  intense. 
The  universal  reign  of  Law  and  the  uniformity  of 
Nature  have  been  emphasised  by  science,  and  caprice 
has  been  steadily  driven  from  the  field.  Great  objec- 
tion is  felt  to  any  interference  with  the  normal  order, 
such  as  might  induce  an  uneasy  feeling  that  the 
course  of  Nature  could  not  be  reUed  on.  At  all  hazards, 
it  is  felt,  our  trust  in  the  consistency  of  Nature  must 
not  be  put  to  confusion.  The  attempts  to  parry  this 
objection  have  been  various  and  of  unequal  merit. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  law  of  uniformity  is 
only  an  inference  from  observation  of  what  has 
actually  happened,  and  that  logically  we  have  no 
right  to  assume  that  what  has  uniformly  happened  in 
the  past  is  the  law  for  what  is  yet  to  happen.  If  this 
were  a  matter  of  mere  logic,  such  a  criticism  would 
be  valid.  But  we  all  have  a  fixed  conviction,  on  which 
we  habitually  act,  that  the  course  of  Nature  will  pro- 
ceed to-morrow  as  it  did  yesterday,  and  that  the 
reign  of  law  will  not  be  displaced  by  that  of  topsy- 
turvydom. We  should  think  a  man  mad  if  he  told 
us  that  the  sun  might  rise  in  the  west,  or  that  streams 
would  begin  to  run  uphill,  or  that  water  would  freeze 
if  we  raised  its  temperature  to  boiUng  point.  We  have 
an  invincible  confidence  that  we  shall  have  no  irra- 
tional surprises  of  this  kind,  but  may  fully  trust  that 
the  same  causes  will  continue  to  produce  the  same 
effects.    Nor  can  we  derive  much  help  from  the  sug- 


164    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   T7'uth 

gestion  that  in  the  original  constitution  of  the  universe 
provision  was  made  for  the  sudden  emergence  of 
miracle.  Babbage  showed  that  a  calculating  machine 
could  be  invented  which  should  proceed  for  a  long 
series  of  calculations  on  a  given  principle,  then  sud- 
denly work  according  to  a  different  principle  alto- 
gether, and  again  revert  to  its  first  method.  Any  one 
who  had  watched  its  action  for  a  hundred  thousand 
times  would  feel  that  he  had  irresistible  evidence  for 
beUeving  that  he  had  mastered  the  law  of  the  machine, 
and  that  as  long  as  it  worked  it  would  work  in  that 
way.  But  unknown  to  him  a  principle  would  have 
been  embodied  in  the  machine  which,  when  it  came 
into  operation,  would  prove  the  alleged  law  to  be  a 
complete  mistake.  Now  logically,  of  course,  we  might 
apply  this  principle  to  the  universe.  We  have  only 
observed  its  working  over  a  comparatively  brief 
period,  and  all  the  so-called  laws  of  Nature  are  merely 
based  upon  our  observation  during  that  period.  It 
is  possible  that  the  universe  might  have  been  made 
on  principles  similar  to  that  of  Babbage's  machine. 
In  that  case  a  point  might  be  reached  at  which  new 
forces  should  come  into  operation,  changing  the  con- 
ditions in  what  would  seem  to  be  a  miraculous  manner, 
yet  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  law  of  its  being. 

I  do  not  think,  however,  that  much  help  is  to  be 
gained  along  these  lines.  For  one  thing,  the  most 
ardent  believer  in  miracles  will  not  expect  to  see  the 
customary  order  of  Nature  radically  reversed.     He 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  165 

believes  in  its  rationality  and  order  too  much  for  that. 
Moreover,  we  do  not  regard  the  universe  as  a  kind  of 
machine,  elaborately  constructed  beforehand  and  then 
left  to  itself  to  work  out  the  principles  implanted 
within  it.  If  God  stood  to  the  universe  as  an  inventor 
stands  to  a  machine,  this  parallel  might  help  us.  But 
such  a  deistic  view  of  God's  relation  to  the  world  is 
no  longer  possible  to  us.  For  us  no  part  of  Nature 
down  to  its  minutest  atom  is  withdrawn  from  the 
ever-present  energy  of  the  indwelling  God.  What 
we  call  the  laws  of  Nature  are  but  the  expression  of 
His  will,  and  all  the  forces  that  bewilder  us  with 
their  complexity,  awe  us  with  their  sublimity,  or 
crush  us  with  their  might  are  forces  which  are  wholly 
dependent  on  His  omnipotent  power.  But  when  we 
have  said  this  we  perhaps  have  the  clue  in  our  hands 
that  will  help  us  to  solve  our  riddle.  Nature  is  the 
expression  of  a  living  will,  and  the  majestic  order 
which  it  presents  to  us  speaks  in  eloquent  language 
of  the  wisdom  of  that  Being  on  whom  it  depends. 
At  first  sight  this  thought  seems  to  negative  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  The  deviation  from  order  into 
the  abnormal  seems  to  suggest  that  the  universe  has 
broken  down  in  God's  hands,  that  a  demand  has  been 
made  upon  it  which  it  is  not  adequate  to  fulfil,  and 
hence  that  it  has  been  necessary  to  supplement  it  by 
recourse  to  extraordinary  means.  Moreover,  our  own 
age  is  far  more  inclined  to  emphasise  the  presence  and 
activity  of  God  in  the  common  course  of  things  than 


1 66    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

in  what  is  unusual.  And  there  is  much  to  be  said  for 
this.  It  is  not  healthy  for  us  to  be  seeking  after  a 
sign  or  to  imagine  that  only  what  is  marvellous  can 
be  Divine.  Yet  we  must  beware  of  the  superstition 
of  limiting  God  to  the  tracks  along  which  His  energy 
normally  moves,  and  believing  that  no  end,  however 
worthy,  and  no  emergency,  however  desperate,  could 
induce  Him  to  forsake  the  beaten  path.  We  have  no 
hesitation  in  making  our  personal  impact  on  Nature 
felt  in  ways  hitherto  untried,  and  why  should  God, 
who  exquisitely  adjusts  His  means  to  His  ends,  be 
forbidden  to  manipulate  freely  that  Nature  which  is 
but  the  plastic  impression  of  His  will  ? 

Certain  principles  may  be  stated  in  order  to  miti- 
gate our  antecedent  objection.  We  should,  perhaps, 
be  inclined  to  view  a  miracle  with  less  incredulity  if 
it  was  in  a  line  with  the  working  of  forces  already 
familiar  to  us.  The  accounts  of  Christ's  works  of 
healing,  for  example,  are  accepted  by  many  who 
would  deny  that  they  were  miracles.  But  the  prin- 
ciple has  a  further  extension.  Wliere  a  miracle 
accelerates  a  natural  process,  or  crowds  a  long  de- 
velopment into  a  single  moment,  we  feel  that  this, 
while  strictly  a  miracle,  flows  in  the  same  direction 
as  the  general  stream  of  forces.  If,  again,  there  is  a 
higher  end  to  be  gained,  this  must  be  taken  into 
account  in  estimating  credibility.  The  interests  of 
spirit  are  supreme,  and  may  constitute  a  worthy 
cause  for  the  miraculous  manipulation  of  matter.    In 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  167 

the  highest  of  all  regions,  that  of  religion,  where  it  is 
a  question  of  the  revelation  of  God  and  the  redemp- 
tion of  man,  we  must  admit  that  the  interests  at  stake 
warranted  action  of  this  kind  on  God's  part,  always 
provided  that  this  was  the  fittest  method  of  securing 
it.  And  we  are,  surely,  not  competent  to  judge 
whether  this  or  another  method  would  have  been  the 
fitter.  God's  action  has  so  often  been  quite  other 
than  we  should  have  expected,  that  we  should  be 
modest  in  deciding  what  is  appropriate  for  Him  to  do. 
But  we  can  see  some  reasons  why  this  method  should 
have  been  chosen.  If  a  new  revelation  was  to  be 
given  to  mankind,  miracles  had  their  place  in  calling 
attention  to  it,  and  giving  it  a  foothold  in  the  world. 
They  were  its  credentials  till  it  could  be  accepted  for 
its  own  sake.  From  this  point  of  view  they  are  a 
condescension  to  our  weakness,  ceasing  when  the 
need  for  them  had  passed.  Further,  they  for  the 
most  part  displayed  the  love  and  compassion  of  Jesus, 
in  heaUng  the  sick  and  raising  from  the  dead,  in  feed- 
ing the  multitude  and  casting  out  demons.  These 
were  worthy  ends  in  themselves.  But  one  of  the 
most  important  functions  of  the  Gospel  miracles  is 
that  they  are  signs  of  spiritual  truth.  There  is  an 
inner  significance  in  them.  If  Christ  feeds  the  five 
thousand,  this  is  a  symbol  of  the  great  fact  that  He 
is  the  world's  bread  of  Ufe.  If  the  fig-tree  withers  at 
His  word,  it  is  a  parable  qf  the  doom  that  awaits 
hollow  profession,  and  especially  of  the  doom  of  the 


1 68    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Jewish  people.  His  healing  of  disease  and  raising  of 
the  dead  show  Him  as  the  Lord  of  life  and  Victor  of 
death,  and  are  the  pledge  of  the  final  conquest  of  all 
evil.  And  therefore  the  miracles  are  not  mere  prodi- 
gies, mere  displays  of  power  for  the  sake  of  display. 
They  are  witnesses  to  Christ's  claims,  proofs  of  His 
deep  compassion,  symbols  of  great  spiritual  realities. 
In  all  this  there  is  nothing  unworthy  of  God,  unless 
we  conceive  of  God  as  a  rigorous  pedant,  iron-bound 
in  adherence  to  a  particular  course  of  action.  I  be- 
lieve, on  the  other  hand,  that  God  is  not  self-fettered, 
as  many  imagine,  by  what  we  call  Natural  Law.  If 
to  secure  a  higher  end  the  laws  of  the  lower  realm 
need  to  be  set  aside,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  we  should 
feel  an  insuperable  objection  to  God's  doing  so.  We 
suit  our  means  to  our  ends,  and  why  should  not  He  ? 
In  the  next  place,  we  have  to  remember  that  the 
form  which  the  revelation  assumed  was,  to  a  certain 
extent,  conditioned  by  the  age  into  which  it  came. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  had  the  Gospel  come  into  a 
civilisation  like  our  own  it  might  very  well  have  come 
in  a  completely  different  guise,  and  the  element  of 
miracle  might  have  been  far  less  prominent,  since  it 
would  have  been  less  suited  to  the  intellectual  temper 
of  our  time.  We  can  also  believe  that  the  Gospel 
miracles  are  often  prophetic  of  something  which  may 
yet  be  normal,  the  manifestation  of  forces  at  present 
held  in  check  for  reasons  that  we  cannot  wholly 
fathom^   but   which   are  ultimately  to   be   released. 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  169 

They  are,  in  that  case,  not  violations  of  law,  but  due 
to  the  emergence  in  experience  of  higher  and  hitherto 
unknown  laws.  They  may  be  hints  of  some  higher 
order  towards  which  we  are  moving  or  which  borders 
on  our  o^vn. 

So  far,  then,  I  have  been  pleading  for  a  franker 
recognition  of  our  limitations  in  the  estimate  of  possi- 
bilities, and  trying  to  dispel  some  of  the  antecedent 
objections  to  miracles.  What  has  been  said  has  not 
been  intended  to  prove  that  the  Gospel  miracles 
actually  took  place.  It  has  been  meant  to  place  the 
reader  at  a  point  of  view  where  he  may  be  able  to 
divest  himself  of  prejudice  and  enter  on  a  dispassionate 
historical  inquiry.  When  we  come  to  discuss  the 
question  whether  the  miracles  actually  occurred,  there 
are  several  points  which  deserve  consideration.  I  call 
attention  first  to  the  intimate  connexion  between  the 
miraculous  and  non-miraculous  elements  in  the  Gos- 
pels. It  would  be  no  easy  task  to  cut  out  the  miracu- 
lous and  leave  the  other  elements  intact.  They  form 
the  starting-point  for  much  of  the  characteristic 
teaching,  and  sayings  which  only  h5^ercriticism  would 
regard  as  invented  presuppose  that  miracles  have 
taken  place.  And  the  analytic  criticism  of  the  narra- 
tives does  not  help  us  to  discard  the  supernormal,  for 
in  the  earliest  stratum  of  Synoptic  tradition  this 
element  is  present. 

In  the  next  place,  the  miracles  bear  the  stamp  of 
sobriety  and  dignity.     Those  who  are  familiar  with 


I70    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  products  of  unrestrained  imagination  pandering  to 
love  of  the  marvellous  will  be  deeply  struck  by  this 
quality  in  the  Gospels.  The  comparison  with  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels  has  in  this  respect  often  been 
made,  and  the  repulsive,  passionate,  spiteful  Jesus 
whom  they  set  before  us,  performing  grotesque  miracles 
of  ostentatious  display,  mere  prodigies,  devoid  of  all 
higher  significance,  designed  to  gratify  his  own  desires, 
stands  in  striking  contrast  to  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels, 
who  leads  a  quiet  life  of  retirement  till  the  time 
arrives  for  Him  to  undertake  His  mission  for  the 
world.  In  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  Jesus  strikes  a  boy 
dead  for  running  against  Him,  turns  clay  sparrows 
into  live  birds,  and  performs  many  similar  wonders. 
This  literature  shows  how  writers,  who  were  not  con- 
trolled by  facts,  imagined  that  a  Being  possessed  of 
miraculous  powers  would  act.  If  the  Gospel  miracles 
did  not  really  occur,  how  is  it  that  their  narratives 
are  free  from  the  same  glaring  defects  ?  If  fancy  had 
inspired  them,  would  they  not  have  told  similar 
wonderful  stories  of  Christ's  boyhood  ?  But  they  are 
true  to  the  great  principle  that  His  miracles  were  only 
wrought  for  the  sake  of  His  mission,  and  therefore 
never  till  His  ministry  began.  And  along  with  the 
sobriety  of  the  stories  we  may  take  tl  eir  etliical 
character.  Jesus  does  not  work  miracles  for  Himself. 
At  the  very  outset  of  His  career  He  refused  to  do  it, 
and  maintained  that  attitude  steadfastly  to  the  end. 
His  miracles  were,  for  the  most  part,  deeds  of  com- 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  171 

passionate  love,  revealing  the  depth  of  His  tenderness 
and  sympathy  ;  they  were  of  a  piece  with  His  whole 
character  and  life. 

Again,  we  feel  no  disharmony  in  reading  the  Gospels 
between  the  miraculous  and  the  other  elements  of  the 
story.  The  writers  move  quite  easily  in  every  part, 
tell  everything  in  the  same  matter-of-fact  style,  and 
sketch  a  character  which  leaves  a  firm  and  consistent 
impression.  Their  management  of  the  supernatural 
would  have  been  the  precise  point  where  they  would 
have  broken  down  if  they  had  had  no  facts  behind  them. 
It  is  not  easy  even  for  a  skilful  writer  to  manipulate 
the  supernatural,  and  fit  it  easily  into  a  framework 
of  ordinary  incident.  But  we  feel  no  sense  of  awk- 
wardness or  incongruity  in  passing  from  the  normal 
to  the  abnormal  in  the  Gospel  narrative.  Now  the 
authors  were  not  men  of  consummate  literary  genius, 
who  by  their  unfaihng  literary  tact  secured  this  re- 
markable effect ;  they  were  plain  and  homely  men, 
and  their  literary  triumph  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  faithfully  recorded  events  which  they  would 
have  had  no  skill  to  invent. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  Gospels  arose  in  an  un- 
scientific age,  when  people  were  credulous  about 
miracles  and  readily  satisfied  as  to  their  authenticity. 
It  is,  of  course,  quite  true  that  we  are  not  dealing 
with  scientifically-tested  incidents,  and  quite  possibly 
an  observ^er  trained  in  modem  methods  would  have 
reported  in  different  language  from  that  used  by  our 


172    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

evangelists.  But  an  examination  of  the  narratives 
themselves  shows  us  that  miracles  were  not  looked 
upon  as  a  kind  of  everyday  experience.  The  Gospels 
mention  again  and  again  the  unbounded  amazement 
that  Christ's  miracles  excited.  What  struck  the  people 
was  the  uniqueness  of  His  acts.  They  never  saw  it 
on  this  manner.  Moreover,  His  enemies  invented 
grotesque  explanations  of  His  miracles,  just  because 
they  could  not  deny  the  facts  themselves,  and  yet 
had  to  negative  the  inferences  which  were  naturally 
drawn  from  them.  The  explanation  of  Christ's 
miracles  given  by  the  Pharisees,  that  they  were 
wrought  by  Satanic  power,  shows  by  its  very  desperate- 
ness  how  urgently  they  felt  the  need  of  explaining 
facts  too  patent  to  be  denied  They  may  not  have 
had  the  training  of  a  modem  scientist,  but  their  eyes 
were  sharpened  by  hate,  and  if  they  could  have  ex- 
posed a  fraud  or  disillusioned  a  too  credulous  public 
they  would  have  left  no  stone  unturned  to  do  so. 

A  theory  which  at  one  time  had  great  vogue  calls 
for  mention  at  this  point.  Strauss  argued  in  his 
famous  Life  of  Jesus  that  the  miracle  stories  were 
the  outcome  of  a  mythical  tendency,  and  especially 
were  influenced  by  the  Messianic  beliefs  of  the  people 
and  Old  Testament  narratives.  Since  His  followers 
regarded  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  it  was  natural  that 
the  narratives  of  His  life  should  represent  Him  as 
fulfilling  the  Messianic  expectations,  and  thus,  quite 
naturally    and    without    fraudulent    intention,    the 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  173 

mythical  stories  grew  up  about  Him.  On  Strauss's 
effort  a  few  words  may  suffice.  First,  as  Baur,  who 
was  his  teacher  and  the  famous  founder  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  pointed  out,  Strauss  attempted  a  criticism  of 
the  narratives  without  the  indispensable  preliminary 
of  criticising  the  documents  in  which  they  are  found. 
Secondly,  the  mythical  theory  took  no  account  of  the 
inexorable  limits  of  time.  Myths  grow  up  far  more 
slowly  than  Strauss  realised.  In  the  most  important 
case  of  aU,  the  Resurrection,  we  have  evidence  which 
carries  us  back  to  the  very  week  of  the  death  of 
Jesus,  and  Paul's  evidence  in  general  is  sufficient  to 
dispose  of  the  theory  as  a  serious  interpretation  of  the 
career  of  Jesus.  Lastly,  it  is  just  in  the  crucial  cases 
that  the  theory  turns  out  to  be  most  unsatisfactory. 
On  this  I  may  quote  the  evidence  of  a  sympathetic 
witness,  who  was  himself  a  militant  opponent  of  the 
belief  in  miracles.  Pfieiderer,  who  contributed  an 
introduction  to  the  reissue  of  George  EHot's  transla- 
tion in  1892,  has  the  following  words  :  "  Precisely  the 
chief  miracles — the  birth  of  Jesus,  His  baptism,  trans- 
figuration, resurrection,  the  change  of  water  into  wine 
at  Cana,  the  stilling  of  the  storm,  and  walking  on  the 
sea — violence  must  be  used  to  explain  these  miracles 
by  reference  to  Old  Testament  types,  and  the  Jewish 
idea  of  the  Messiah  offers  no  lines  corresponding  to 
these." 

I  would  next  call  attention  to  other  factors  in  the 
Gospel  history  which  have  to  be  taken  into  account 


174    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

in  estimating  the  miraculous  element.     First  of  all, 
the  Christian  Church  believes  in  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus.     Naturally  that  is  a  point  on  which  I  shall 
have  something  to  say  later.    But  if  for  a  moment 
we  adopt  without  discussion  this  point  of  view,  it  will 
surely  influence  our  attitude  not  a  httle.    In  the  first 
place,  sinlessness  is  itself  a  moral  miracle  even  more 
wonderful  than  the  manipulation  of  matter  imphed 
in  the  physical  miracles.     Secondly,  it  was  possible 
for  powers  to  be  entrusted  to  Him  which  could  not 
have  been  safely  committed  to  any  one  less  good  than 
He  was.    History  is  full  of  examples  of  men  demoral- 
ised by  the  possession  of  despotic  power.    We  think 
of  Nero  as  a  typical  though  somewhat  extreme  in- 
stance.    But  even  the  irresponsible  tyrant  who  is 
fettered  by  no  restriction  of  constitutional  authority 
must  recognise  the  limits  imposed  on  humanity  which 
even  the  most  exalted  may  not  pass.     The  savage 
chief  who  holds  the  life  of  his  people  m  the  hollow  of 
his  hand,  the  slave-owner  who  may  practise  unre- 
strained the  most  loathsome  outrages  and  the  most 
fiendish  tortures  on  the  hapless  victims  of  his  passions 
and  cruelty,  are  instances  which  show  us  how  danger- 
ous it  may  be  to  delegate  power  to  those  who  are  so 
easily  demoralised  by  it.    But  how  much  more  terrible 
the  power  might  be  if  the  faculties  thus  entrusted 
were  of  what  we  should  call  a  superhuman  order. 
He  who  would  fitly  exercise  these  must  be  free  from 
the  faintest  trace  of  self-seeking,  and  endowed  with  a 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus  175 

Divine  holiness  and  beneficence.  I  do  not  say  that 
this  proves  in  any  way  that  the  miracles  really  hap- 
pened, but  I  am  pointing  out  the  harmony  of  the 
character  of  Jesus  with  the  works  which  are  assigned 
to  Him — they  support  each  other. 

Another  feature  in  the  Gospel  miracles  that  deserves 
attention  is  the  spiritual  significance  which  attaches 
to  many  of  them.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  the 
miracles  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  author  speaks  of 
them  as  signs — that  is,  they  are  enacted  parables 
which  are  not  mere  portents,  but  have  a  deep  spiritual 
significance.  The  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand  forms 
a  text  for  a  discourse  on  Jesus  as  the  Bread  of  Life, 
the  Healing  of  the  Blind  Man  is  a  visible  spiritual 
symbol  of  sight  given  to  those  who  are  inwardly  blind. 
The  miracles  are  thus  not  mere  wonders,  but  they 
disclose  in  vivid  concrete  form  some  of  the  laws  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  In  this  respect,  too,  the  Gospel 
miracles  are  distinguished  from  many  other  narratives 
of  the  kind. 

Lastly,  let  us  remember  the  place  of  Jesus  in  uni- 
versal history.  The  most  important  fact  in  human 
life  and  history  is  reUgion,  whether  we  have  regard  to 
its  intrinsic  value  or  the  part  it  has  played  in  the 
affairs  of  men.  Wherever  we  look  in  the  long  history 
of  our  race  we  find  rehgion  pre-eminent ;  it  is  that 
which  strikes  deepest  into  Hfe.  And  by  common  con- 
sent of  those  best  fitted  to  judge,  Jesus  stands  in  the 
history  of  religion  without  a  peer.    In  Him  centre  the 


176    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

streams  that  flow  out  of  the  past,  from  Him  have 
come  those  influences  which  have  shaped  and  will 
shape  the  history  since  His  day.  And  in  a  personality 
and  an  epoch  so  critical,  so  fraught  with  destiny,  is 
it  so  incredible  that  strange  and  unlmown  powers 
should  have  been  at  work,  that  His  beneficent  energy 
might  be  released  and  achieve  for  humanity  what 
might  otherv^dse  have  been  unattained  ?  Horace,  in 
a  famous  passage,  warned  the  tragedian  that  he  should 
not  bring  a  god  upon  the  stage  unless  there  were  an 
entanglement  whose  solution  was  worthy  of  a  god. 
So,  too,  we  may  vindicate  the  place  of  miracle.  The 
task  to  be  achieved  was  of  such  vital  moment,  and 
sin  had  brought  the  coil  in  which  humanity  was  en- 
snared into  such  a  tangle,  that  for  its  unravelling  we 
may  well  beheve  God  would  not  shrink  from  bringing 
abnormal  forces  into  play.  I  have  Uttle  faith  that  a 
non-miraculous  Christianity  will  be  foimd  to  stand 
the  test  either  of  criticism  or  experience.  It  will  have 
to  be  more  or  less.  But  our  attitude  to  the  Gospel 
miracles  in  general  is  naturally  influenced  to  no  small 
degree  by  our  decision  on  the  crucial  problem  of  the 
Resurrection.  I  therefore  propose  to  devote  a  special 
chapter  to  its  investigation ;  but  before  I  approach 
this  I  must  discuss  the  question  of  the  Supernatural 
Birth,  which  is  at  the  present  time  exciting  much 
interest. 


CHAPTER   XI 
THE  SUPERNATURAL  BIRTH  OF  JESUS 

IT  is  undeniable  that  for  some  time  now  the  minds 
of  many  Christians  have  been  much  exercised 
on  the  question  of  the  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus. 
I  wish,  therefore,  to  say  at  the  outset  that  I  do 
not  regard  this  question  as  one  which  vitally  affects 
the  Christian  faith.  It  is  important  to  emphasise 
this,  because  many  Christians,  very  injudiciously 
as  I  beheve,  speak  as  if  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
and  His  sinlessness  were  vitally  bound  up  with  the 
question  of  His  human  origin.  I  desire,  therefore, 
to  express  as  emphatically  as  I  can  my  behef  that 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  completely  independent 
of  the  precise  method  by  which  He  came  into  the 
world ;  and,  secondly,  to  point  out  how  dangerous  it 
is  to  stake  the  fundamental  truth  of  our  religion  on 
a  fact  which  in  the  nature  of  the  case  could  be  only 
very  slightly  attested.  The  levity  which  is  often  dis- 
played by  exponents  of  Christianity  is  responsible  for 
not  a  little  present-day  scepticism. 

I  wish,  in  the  next  place,  to  express  my  own  belief 
that  the  doctrine  does  not  provide  us  with  a  strong 
guarantee  for  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  or  help  to  ex- 
W  177 


178    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

plain  it.  I  have  never  been  able  to  understand  why 
the  transmission  of  a  sinful  human  nature  could  not 
have  come  just  as  well  through  one  parent  as  through 
two.  It  is  quite  true  that  we  are  dealing  here  with 
factors  of  which  we  know  little,  but  it  can  hardly  be 
seriously  contended  that  the  ehmination  of  one  factor 
leaves  us  with  a  sinless  origin  unless  we  are  prepared 
to  accept  the  Romanist  theory  that  the  Virgin  Mary 
was  herself  from  the  very  outset  cleansed  from  original 
sin.  Most  of  my  readers  will,  I  imagine,  admit  that 
Mary  constituted  no  exception  to  the  universal  sin- 
fulness of  the  human  race.  Hence  we  cannot  explain 
the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  by  the  supernatural  birth.  So 
far,  however,  as  the  idea  rests  on  the  thought  that 
virginity  is  a  purer  state  than  marriage,  that  I  can 
regard  only  as  a  disgusting  asceticism  which  sets  itself 
up  to  be  wiser  than  the  Creator.  It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  because  a  behef  is  not  fundamental  it 
is  therefore  unimportant.  The  behef  in  question  pre- 
sents many  points  of  interest  and  deserves  very  atten- 
tive consideration.  If  it  is  true,  it  can  hardly  be  devoid 
of  significance,  though  we  may  not  be  in  a  position  to 
point  out  where  that  significance  hes.  Now  those  who 
beheve  that  whatever  is  in  the  New  Testament  is  to 
be  accepted  simply  because  it  is  there  naturally  raise 
no  question  with  reference  to  this  matter.  But  that 
is  not  the  point  of  view  of  those  for  whom  I  am  mainly 
writing.  They  wish  the  matter  to  be  foreclosed  by 
no  theory  of  inspiration,  but  to  receive  impartial  in- 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus        179 

vestlgation,  and  I  myself  hold  strongly  that  this  is  the 
only  ultimately  satisfactory  method  of  treating  the 
subject.  We  approach  it,  then,  just  as  we  should  any 
other  problem  in  history. 

It  ought  to  be  frankly  admitted  at  the  outset  that 
a  very  impressive  case  can  be  built  up  against  the 
historical  character  of  the  birth  stories.  And  since  I 
think  that  nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  refusing  to  look 
facts  in  the  face,  and  to  hear  the  utmost  that  can  be 
said  on  either  side,  I  begin  by  stating  the  case  against 
the  truth  of  the  narratives.  We  have,  in  the  first 
place,  to  set  the  silence  of  much  of  the  New  Testament 
literature.  Modem  scholars  are  all  but  unanimous  in 
the  belief  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  our  earhest 
Gospel,  and  was  employed  in  our  first  and  third 
Gospels.  We  have  then  to  notice  the  fact  that  this 
Gospel  betrays  no  knowledge  of  the  supernatural 
birth.  Indeed,  the  friends  of  Jesus,  when  they  heard 
of  the  multitudes  that  were  thronging  to  His  ministry, 
went  out  to  lay  hands  on  Him  under  the  impression 
that  He  had  lost  His  reason,  and  His  mother  was  associ- 
ated with  His  brethren  in  this  enterprise.  Had  she 
been  aware  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  her  Son,  as 
the  first  and  third  Gospels  represent,  it  is  argued  that 
she  would  not  have  attempted  to  restrain  His  activity 
or  placed  such  a  construction  upon  it. 

But  we  have  a  witness  earlier  even  than  Mark,  and 
that  is  the  Apostle  Paul.  -  He,  too,  although  his 
Epistles  are  full  of  Jesus,  never  alludes  to  the  fact  in 


i8o    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

question,  though  he  asserts  His  Davidic  descent.  In 
view  of  Job  xiv.  i,  it  would  be  impossible  to  lay  stress 
upon  Galatians  iv.  4  as  a  tacit  allusion  on  Paul's  part 
to  it,  especially  as  in  that  passage  Paul  is  emphasising 
the  community  in  experience  of  Jesus  with  His  fellows 
rather  than  His  distinction  from  them.  And  what  is 
true  of  Paul  is  true  also  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  author  alludes  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  sprang  out 
of  Judah  as  notorious.  He  lays  much  stress  on  the 
reaUty  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  participation  of 
Jesus  in  the  lot  of  His  brethren.  He  even  refers  to 
the  body  of  Jesus  as  prepared  by  God,  but  he  no- 
where alludes  to  the  mode  of  His  birth.  And  so  with 
the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  literature.  Outside 
the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  a 
bare  reference  in  the  introduction  to  Luke's  genealogy, 
the  New  Testament  is  entirely  silent. 

And  when  we  pass  on  to  consider  these  chapters 
the  difficulties  thicken  about  us.  It  is  extremely  hard 
and  perhaps  impossible  for  us  to  reconcile  them.  They 
tell  an  entirely  different  set  of  incidents.  Matthew 
narrates  the  hesitation  of  Joseph  and  its  removal  by 
a  dream,  the  marriage  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  the  birth 
of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem,  the  visit  of  the  Wise  Men,  their 
interview  with  Herod  and  return  to  their  own  country 
by  another  road  in  consequence  of  a  dream  which 
warned  them  not  to  return  to  the  King,  Joseph's  flight 
with  mother  and  child  into  Egypt  in  consequence  of 
a  dream,  the  massacre  of  the  babes  at  Bethlehem,  th« 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus        i8i 

return  of  Joseph  to  Palestine,  his  fear  to  return  to 
Judea  on  account  of  Archelaus,  and  his  residence  at 
Nazareth,  in  GaHlee,  in  consequence  of  a  dream.  This 
narrative  is  marked  by  striking  peculiarities.  Joseph 
is  very  prominent  throughout,  and  no  fewer  than  five 
dreams  occur  in  a  narrative  of  thirty-one  verses.  The 
writer  betrays  no  knowledge  that  Nazareth  was  the 
home  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  but  suggests  that  it  was 
selected  for  their  abode  in  consequence  of  a  dream. 

The  narrative  in  Luke  tells  us  of  the  story  of  Zacha- 
rias  and  Elizabeth,  the  appearance  of  Gabriel  to 
Zacharias  in  the  Temple  and  promise  of  the  birth  of 
John,  the  incredulity  of  Zacharias  and  his  dumbness, 
the  visit  of  Gabriel  to  Mary  at  Nazareth  and  the 
Annunciation,  the  visit  of  Mary  to  Elizabeth  and  the 
Magnificat,  the  birth  of  John  and  the  Benedictus,  the 
enrolment  under  Quirinius  and  consequent  visit  of 
Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem,  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
the  appearance  of  the  angels  to  the  shepherds  and 
their  visit  to  the  child,  the  naming  of  Jesus,  His 
presentation  in  the  Temple  and  the  story  of  Simeon 
and  Anna,  and  the  return  of  Joseph  and  Mary  with 
Jesus  to  Nazareth.  Here  Mary  receives  a  prominence 
not  accorded  to  her  in  the  story  of  Matthew,  and  from 
the  first  she  is  regarded  as  resident  in  Nazareth,  and 
the  birth  at  Bethlehem  is  due  to  the  accident  of  the 
census.  These  very  different  stories  naturally  make 
on  many  the  impression  that  they  are  hopelessly  in- 
consistent with  each  other. 


1 82    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Added  to  adl  these  difficulties  there  is  the  ominous 
fact  that  the  story  of  demi-gods  who  have  sprung  from 
the  mating  of  divine  and  human  parents  has  had  a 
very  wide  diffusion  among  heathen  peoples.  It  is 
therefore  only  what  might  be  expected  when  we  find 
a  similar  origin  attributed  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The 
claim  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  naturally  clothed 
itself  in  a  myth  of  this  kind. 

These,  then,  are  the  main  objections  which  the 
story  arouses  in  many  minds.  I  proceed  to  consider 
their  validity.  I  do  not  wish  to  disguise  that  the 
difficulties  are  really  serious.  They  are  felt  by  some 
who  have  no  prejudice  against  miracles  and  firmly 
believe  in  the  Resurrection  of  Christ.  At  the  same 
time  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  force  of  the  objec- 
tions is  frequently  overrated.  The  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  outside  the  first  and  third  Gospels  is  of 
very  trifling  importance.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  does 
not  attempt  to  give  us  anything  beyond  the  history 
of  which  the  apostles  were  themselves  witnesses  and 
which  formed  the  subject  of  their  testimony.  Peter 
lays  down  as  the  qualification  for  apostleship  that  the 
candidates  should  have  companied  with  the  apostles 
all  the  time  that  Jesus  was  with  them,  beginning  from 
the  baptism  by  John  to  the  day  that  He  was  received 
up.  Similarly  in  his  speech  to  ComeUus,  and  in  Paul's 
address  at  Antioch,  the  same  hmit  is  observed.  The 
birth  and  earher  years  of  Jesus  accordingly  He  outside 
the  scope  of  the  apostolic  testimony  to  His  career, 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus       183 

and  Mark  abides  faithfully  by  the  Hmits  which  it 
observed.  And  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  the 
matter  was  not  one  to  be  proclaimed  from  the  house- 
tops, especially  while  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  still 
alive.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  question  whether  it  had  been 
disclosed  by  Mary  to  any  of  the  apostles  for  a  long 
time  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  It  does  not  follow  that 
Mark  was  unaware  of  the  story  when  he  wrote  his 
Gospel,  though  this  is  quite  possible.  Nor  is  it  clear 
from  Mark's  narrative  that  Mary  herself  shared  the 
opinion  that  Jesus  was  beside  Himself. 

The  case  of  Paul  is  somewhat  different.  His  Epistles 
were  written  for  the  most  part  to  churches  which  he 
had  himself  founded,  and  they  presuppose  the  teach- 
ing he  had  already  .given  to  the  members.  This,  it  is 
true,  does  not  apply  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  or 
that  to  the  Colossians,  but  in  both  cases  he  was  deal- 
ing with  those  who  were  instructed  to  some  extent  in 
the  Christian  faith.  It  is  therefore  possible  that  the 
story  of  the  supernatural  birth  had  been  communicated 
to  the  recipients  of  his  Epistles.  At  the  same  time,  I 
am  very  dubious  about  this.  There  is  no  allusion  to 
such  teaching  in  the  Epistles  themselves.  Moreover, 
I  suspect  that  Paul  would  have  felt  it  desirable,  in 
dealing  with  Christians  who  came  out  of  heathenism, 
not  to  divulge  to  them  all  at  once  a  story  which  they 
would  only  too  readily  treat  as  on  a  par  with  the 
myths  of  the  demi-gods.  And  it  is  by  no  means  im- 
probable that  if  he  ever  learnt  the  story,  it  was  only 


184    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

comparatively  late  in  life.  If  the  third  Gospel  was 
written  by  Luke,  it  is  most  hkely  that  he  learnt  it 
when  he  was  in  Palestine  during  Paul's  imprisonment 
at  Caesarea,  and  if  he  knew  it  we  may  assume  that  he 
would  communicate  it  to  Paul.  There  is,  however, 
no 'essential  advance  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person 
in  the  later  Epistles  from  that  which  we  find  in  the 
earlier.  From  the  first  Paul  regarded  Jesus  as  the 
pre-existent  Son  of  God  who  had  become  man,  and 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  would  have 
regarded  the  mode  of  birth  as  vitally  affecting  the 
construction  of  his  central  doctrine. 

The  fourth  Gospel  presents  us  with  rather  more 
interesting  problems  in  this  connexion.  At  the  time 
when  it  was  written  the  author  can  hardly  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  story.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  so  that  his 
silence  concerning  it  can  hardly  be  due  to  ignorance. 
It  might,  of  course,  be  argued  that  it  was  due  to  re- 
jection of  it,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
he  would  feel  it  out  of  harmony  with  his  own  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  ;  presumably  he  would 
consider  it  a  not  unfitting  mode  in  which  that  Incar- 
nation might  take  place.  But,  apart  from  this,  it  is 
by  no  means  clear  that  he  was  silent.  In  the  thir- 
teenth verse  of  the  first  chapter  there  is  a  very  ancient 
reading,  "  Who  was  bom  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  The  usually 
accepted  text  reads  the  plural  instead  of  the  singular, 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus       185 

and  the  reference  is  in  that  case  to  the  spiritual  birth 
of  those  who  beHeved  on  the  Name  of  the  Logos. 
But  the  other  reading,  as  Resch  was  the  first  to  show, 
has  very  strong  attestation,  and  it  is  accepted  by  such 
scholars  as  Blass  and  Loisy.  If  it  preserves  the  original 
text,  we  probably  have  here  a  definite  statement  of 
the  supernatural  birth. 

We  may  say,  however,  with  high  probability  that 
the  evangehst  alludes  in  vii.  42  to  the  birth  at  Beth- 
lehem. He  represents  the  multitude  as  disputing  the 
Messianic  character  of  Jesus,  some  making  the  objec- 
tion that  the  Messiah  could  not  come  out  of  Galilee 
since  He  must  be  of  the  seed  of  David  and  spring  out 
of  Bethlehem.  It  is  strange  that  some  should  have 
inferred  from  this  that  the  author  wished  to  negative 
the  Davidic  descent  and  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  still 
more  that  he  was  ignorant  of  these  facts.  The  Davidic 
origin,  decades  before  the  Gospel  appeared,  was  a 
matter  of  notoriety  in  the  Church,  and  Jesus  was 
Himself  regarded  as  the  Son  of  David  in  His  lifetime. 
And  the  author  is  content  to  let  the  objection  go  with- 
out a  single  word  of  refutation,  just  because  he  could 
so  surely  count  on  his  readers  supplying  the  refutation 
for  themselves.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  it  was  in 
the  Johannine  school  that  the  supernatural  birth 
received  such  prominence.  Ignatius  insists  very 
strongly  upon  it. 

I  pass  on,  then,  to  the  stories  in  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  I  begin  with  their  discrepancies.    It  is  quite 


1 86    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

true  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  escape  the  impression 
that  the  stories  do  not  easily  dovetail  into  each  other. 
There  are  several  points,  however,  to  be  considered 
before  we  draw  far-reaching  inferences  from  this.  We 
cannot  forget  that  it  is  a  quite  common  phenomenon 
in  history  to  have  very  different  accounts  given  of  the 
same  incident.  Even  eye-witnesses  of  an  event  often 
disagree  as  to  minute  details.  There  is,  it  is  true,  no 
absolute  contradiction  between  the  narratives,  still  we 
should  infer  from  Matthew  that  the  residence  in 
Nazareth  was  an  accident ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  should  not  imagine  from  the  story  in  Luke  that 
the  flight  into  Egypt  and  the  circumstances  which  led 
up  to  it  had  ever  occurred.  Yet  even  here  we  shall 
do  well  to  bear  certain  things  in  mind.  The  differ- 
ences are  partly  due  to  the  patent  fact  that  in  one 
case  Joseph's  point  of  view  is  insisted  upon,  in  the 
other  case  Mary's.  It  was  the  series  of  events  in 
which  Joseph  was  most  prominent  that  naturally 
bulked  most  in  his  reminiscences.  This  may  not 
account  entirely  for  the  selection  of  incidents,  for  it 
is  also  crossed  by  the  evangelist's  characteristic  in- 
terest in  proving  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  from  the 
Old  Testament,  on  which  I  shall  have  something  to 
say  later. 

As  to  Luke's  narrative,  I  may  point  out  that  it 
immediately  follows  a  personal  statement  by  the 
author  in  which  he  claims  to  have  "  accurately  traced 
the  course  of  all  things  from  the  first."    Such  a  state- 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus        187 

ment  ought  to  be  respectfully  received,  and  while,  no 
doubt,  there  are  scholars  who  impugn  Luke's  accuracy, 
it  may  be  said  with  some  confidence  that  his  credit  as 
an  historian  has  steadily  risen.  He  had  considerable 
opportunity  for  investigation  while  he  was  in  Palestine. 
It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  while  he  tells  a  story  so 
different  in  many  of  its  features  from  that  of  Matthew, 
he  coincides  in  some  very  important  points,  namely, 
in  the  central  fact  of  the  supernatural  birth  itself,  in 
the  location  of  it  at  Bethlehem,  in  the  time  at  which 
it  took  place — the  reign  of  Herod,  in  the  subsequent 
residence  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth.  Now,  in  view  of  the 
difference  between  the  two  stories,  it  is  clear  that  they 
are  entirely  independent,  and  therefore  that  we  have 
two  witnesses  who  agree  in  this  series  of  coincidences. 
Why  should  the  birth  be  placed  in  Bethlehem  if,  as 
we  are  constantly  told,  Jesus  was  really  bom  in 
Nazareth  ?  Had  we  simply  the  first  Gospel  to  deal 
with,  it  would  be  plausible  to  say  that  the  prophecy 
of  Micah  created  it.  In  answer  to  the  Jewish  objec- 
tion that,  according  to  the  prediction  in  Micah,  the 
Messiah  must  be  bom  in  Bethlehem,  the  story  grew 
up  that  He  was  bom  there,  but,  owing  to  circum- 
stances, removed  to  Nazareth.  But  it  is  by  no  means 
e£Lsy  to  apply  this  explanation  to  Luke's  narrative, 
for  he  was  not  dominated  in  the  same  way  as  the 
author  of  the  first  Gospel  by  the  necessities  of  Messianic 
apologetic,  and  he  accounts  for  the  birth  in  Bethlehem 
by  reference  to  the  census  of  Quirinius.     It  is  im- 


1 88    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

possible  to  go  into  the  well-known  difficulties  raised 
by  this  statement ;  but,  while  it  cannot  be  said  that 
Luke's  accuracy  has  been  estabHshed  in  this  point, 
it  has  not  been  proved  that  he  made  a  mistake. 

It  is,  I  believe,  higlily  improbable  that  heathen  in- 
fluence should  be  invoked  to  account  for  the  stories. 
The  New  Testament,  on  the  whole,  is  singularly  free 
from  marks  of  heathen  influence,  and  it  is  intrinsically 
unlikely  that  one  of  the  lowest  features  of  pagan 
mythology,  the  story  of  heroes  of  mingled  divine  and 
human  parentage,  should  have  been  adopted  by  its 
writers.  Such  stories  would  have  been  most  repul- 
sive to  a  Jew;  they  would  have  been  equally  so  to 
Jewish  Christians,  especially  as  applied  to  Him  whom 
they  worshipped  as  the  Son  of  God.  The  birth  stories 
both  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  especially  in  the  latter, 
are  in  their  whole  structure  and  point  of  view  Jewish 
throughout. 

Yet  they  cannot  easily  be  explained  as  Jewish 
Christian  creations.  The  Jews  exalted  marriage,  and 
not  virginity  ;  and  therefore  there  was  no  temptation 
to  invent  such  a  story  by  way  of  commending  the 
Messianic  character  of  Jesus  to  the  Jews.  But  it  may 
be  urged  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  Jewish 
belief  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  born  of  a  virgin. 
But  was  there  such  a  belief  ?  Possibly  there  may  have 
been,  though  it  would  not  be  easy  to  prove  it.  It 
may  be  asked,  What  about  Isaiah's  prediction  of  the 
birth  of  Immanuel  ?    On  this  I  must  content  myself 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus        189 

with  stating  reeults,  referring  for  a  discussion  of  the 
question  to  my  article  "  Immanuel  "  in  The  Dictionary 
of  Christ  and  the  Gospels.  Isaiah's  prophecy  of  Im- 
manuel, since  it  was  intended  to  reassure  Ahaz,  who 
was  in  the  throes  of  the  war  with  Syria,  could  not 
have  related  to  an  event  which  was  to  occur  seven 
hundred  years  later.  The  Hebrew  term  translated 
"  virgin  "  does  not  properly  bear  that  significance ; 
it  simply  means  a  young  woman  of  marriageable  age. 
The  Septuagint  rendered  by  a  Greek  word  which 
meant  *'  virgin.'*  Matthew  adopts  the  same  trans- 
lation, but  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  could  go  back  to 
the  Hebrew  for  himself,  and  that  he  diverges  to  some 
extent  from  the  Septuagint  in  his  quotation,  it  is  not 
certain  that  he  is  dependent  on  the  Septuagint  here. 
But  may  we  not  argue  that  the  Septuagint  translation 
gave  rise  to  the  story  of  the  supernatural  birth  ?  This 
is  improbable.  It  is  questionable  if  it  would  account 
for  Luke's  story.  But,  secondly,  a  study  of  Matthew's 
Messianic  proof-texts  also  makes  it  unHkely.  These 
texts  are  in  some  cases  so  remote  from  the  incidents 
which  they  are  supposed  to  predict  that  we  can  infer 
with  certainty  that  the  event  suggested  them,  and 
that  they  did  not  create  the  story  of  the  event.  And 
the  same  is  probably  true  here.  The  author  starts 
from  the  fact  of  the  supernatural  birth  and  goes  to 
the  Old  Testament  for  a  text  in  which  it  is  predicted. 
His  story  of  Herod  is  corroborated  by  the  known 
character  of  that  king.     He  was  like  a  savage  tiger 


190    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

where  his  personal  interests  were  touched,  and  the 
least  suspicion  of  disloyalty  or  dread  of  a  rival  threw 
him  into  a  paroxysm  of  insane  fury  which  stopped  at 
nothing. 

I  close  with  some  general  reflections.  In  the  nature 
of  the  case  evidence  for  the  event  must  ultimately  be 
reduced  to  the  testimony  of  Mary  and,  to  a  certain 
degree,  of  Joseph,  and  this  we  have  at  best  at  second 
hand.  In  the  next  place,  we  cannot  discuss  the  ques- 
tion in  a  vacuum.  Were  we  treating  the  case  of  some 
ordinary  man  for  whom  this  claim  was  put  forward 
we  might  excusably  put  it  aside  on  the  ground  of  the 
intrinsic  improbability  of  the  event  and  the  weakness 
of  its  attestation.  But  in  this  case  we  are  speaking 
of  one  whom  we  regard  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  whose 
earthly  career  closed  with  the  still  more  stupendous 
miracle  of  the  Resurrection.  We  are  speaking  of  the 
central  Figure  of  all  History.  Approaching  the  story 
along  these  Hues,  we  may  feel  that  in  a  person  so 
supernatural  the  Virgin-birth  was  natural.  Again, 
the  obvious  fact  that  the  story  lent  itself  to  so  much 
misconstruction  would  have  acted  as  a  severe  check 
upon  its  rise  and  diffusion.  Had  the  disciples  felt 
that  otherwi'-e  they  could  not  guarantee  the  position 
they  assigned  to  their  Founder,  they  would  undoubt- 
edly have  taken  the  risk  of  claiming  for  Him  a  super- 
natural birth.  But  this  was  not  the  case.  His  Davidic 
origin  was  recognised  long  before  the  mystery  of  His 
birth  was  breathed  in  the  Church.    His  Resurrection 


The  Supernatural  Birth  of  Jesus        191 

attested  His  Divine  dignity.  Paul  had  from  a  quite 
early  period  proclaimed  His  Divinity  independently  of 
any  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  His  humanity.  Under 
those  circumstances  the  story  of  the  birth  was  strategic- 
ally vulnerable  and  dogmatically  unnecessary.  Its 
origin  is  most  easily  explained  if  it  embodied  a  fact. 

And  the  very  character  of  the  narratives  pleads  in 
their  favour.  Their  exquisite  reticence,  their  beauty 
and  freshness,  their  purity,  their  complete  freedom 
from  any  trace  of  morbid  reflection  or  vulgar  curiosity 
are  characteristics  the  significance  of  which  we  rightly 
apprehend  only  when  we  compare  them  with  the 
fictions  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  These  narratives 
show  us  what  human  invention  would  do  when  it  set 
itself  to  speculate  on  the  sacred  facts,  and  the  differ- 
ence between  the  story  as  it  comes  to  us  in  the  Evan- 
gehsts,  and  as  it  comes  to  us  soiled  and  depraved  by 
the  coarse  touch  of  the  later  writers,  is  the  difference 
between  the  reverent  description  of  fact  and  the 
unclean  imagination  of  fiction. 


CHAPTER   XII 
THE   RESURRECTION   OF   JESUS 

IN  passing  from  the  question  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus 
to  that  of  His  Resurrection  we  are  in  the  fortu- 
nate position  that  here  our  evidence  is  very  consider- 
able in  quantity  and  early  in  date.  At  the  same  time 
we  labour  under  the  difficulty  that  there  are  several 
real  or  apparent  discrepancies.  It  is  no  concern  of 
mine  to  deny  the  discrepancies  or  to  explain  them 
away.  I  am  dealing  with  the  question  as  an  historical 
problem,  and,  while  the  discordance  of  our  sources 
may  be  inconvenient  for  rigid  theories  of  inspiration, 
it  does  not  render  the  narratives  valueless  for  pur- 
poses of  historical  inquiry.  Quite  the  contrary.  As 
I  have  already  said,  the  historian  is  constantly  con- 
fronted with  irreconcilable  accounts  of  the  same  event 
given  by  people  who  had  good  facihties  for  observa- 
tion. He  welcomes  discrepancies,  since  through  com- 
parison of  them  he  is  sometimes  able  to  work  back  to 
an  earlier  form  of  the  story.  And  whatever  lack  of 
harmony  there  may  be  in  the  statement  of  details, 
there  is  harmony  touching  the  central  events. 

Let  us  remind  ourselves  of  the  situation  in  which 
th«  disciples  of  Jesus  were  placed  by  the  crucifixicm 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  193 

of  their  Master.  They  had  followed  Him  to  Jerusalem 
and  been  gratified  by  the  homage  of  the  multitude.  It 
is  true  that  Jesus  had  spoken  ominous  words  about 
His  death  by  crucifixion.  Yet  His  utterances  seem 
to  have  struck  upon  their  ears  without  entering  their 
minds.  Their  faith  in  the  Messianic  triumph  of  Jesus 
left  no  room  for  foreboding.  With  the  triumphal 
entry  the  hour  of  destiny  seemed  to  have  struck,  and 
they  awaited  eagerly  the  signal  for  the  unfurhng  of 
the  standard.  But  in  perplexing  inactivity  the  golden 
moments  slipped  away,  while  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
multitudes  died  down  or  changed  to  a  sullen  resent- 
ment. Then  all  at  once  the  catastrophe  was  upon 
them  ;  the  arrest,  the  futile  resistance,  their  flight, 
His  condemnation  by  the  religious  leaders  of  the 
people,  the  accursed  death  at  the  hands  of  the  repre- 
sentative of  Rome.  Betrayed  by  one  of  His  followers, 
denied  by  another,  abandoned  by  all,  His  Messianic 
claim  scouted  by  the  Sanhedrin,  and  mocked  by  the 
pagan's  title  over  the  Cross,  He  had  known  the 
deepest  of  all  agony — the  agony  of  desertion  by 
God. 

What  must  all  this  have  meant  to  His  disciples  ? 
That  He  was  disowned  by  the  ecclesiastics  need  not 
have  shaken  them,  for  conflict  with  them  had  been 
a  familiar  feature  of  His  ministry.  That  Pilate  should 
have  sent  Him  to  His  death,  that  might  have  seemed 
only  too  much  of  a  piece  with  the  brutal  treatment 
which  prophets  had  received  from  the  world.     But 


194    Christianity :  its  N attire  and  its   Truth 

that  He  had  been  permitted  to  die  seemed  to  negative 
all  their  expectations  for  Him.  They  had  looked  to 
Him  for  the  emancipation  of  Israel  from  Rome,  and 
Rome  had  put  an  end  to  Him.  Were  He  only  a  pro- 
phet, that  could  have  been  understood,  but  they  had 
thought  of  Him  as  the  Messiah,  and  His  death  seemed 
to  contradict  such  a  claim.  Nor  was  this  the  deepest 
note  in  the  tragedy,  for  He  had  died  on  the  Cross,  He 
had  been  hanged  upon  a  tree.  It  is  the  comfort  of  the 
innocent,  when  fate  goes  against  them,  that  they  may 
appeal  to  the  future  from  the  present,  and  may  com- 
mit their  vindication  to  the  care  of  God.  But  here 
it  seemed  as  though  God  had  endorsed  the  verdict  of 
Caiaphas  and  Pilate,  and  by  permitting  Jesus  to  die 
on  the  Cross  had  placed  upon  Him  the  stigma  of  His 
own  curse.  For  the  Law  had  said,  "  Cursed  is  every- 
one that  hangeth  upon  a  tree,"  and  to  the  pious  Jew 
the  curse  of  the  Law  was  God*s  verdict,  from  which 
there  could  be  no  appeal.  Who  were  they,  weak, 
fallible  mortals,  to  let  their  memories  of  the  Master, 
the  impression  He  had  made  upon  them  by  the  purity 
and  beauty  of  His  life,  by  the  speU  of  His  personaHty, 
the  power  of  His  teaching,  the  wonder  of  His  works, 
stand  for  one  moment  against  the  immistakable  sen- 
tence of  God  ?  What  was  there  for  them  to  do  but, 
with  their  ideals  shattered,  to  forget  their  misguided 
enthusiasm  and  return  to  the  nets  they  had  abandoned 
in  obedience  to  His  call  ?  Had  His  career  ended  with 
death.  His  cause  w©uld  have  perished  with  Him  on 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  195 

the  Cross,  and  been  buried  irretrievably  with  Him  in 
His  tomb. 

And  yet  we  know  that  they  were  not  mastered  by 
their  despair,  that  they  did  not  accept  the  Cross  as 
God's  last  word  upon  Jesus,  but  that  in  the  very  city 
where  their  Lord  had  been  crucified  they  proclaimed 
Him  as  Messiah,  and  boldly  charged  His  judges  with 
the  guilt  of  His  murder.  What  had  happened  to 
change  these  nervous  Galileans,  who,  when  the  arrest 
came,  saved  themselves  by  flight,  and  left  their  Master 
to  His  fate  ?  What  cause  had  been  at  work  to  assure 
them  that  in  proclaiming  the  crucified  Messiah  they 
were  not  fighting  against  God,  but  had  Him  on  their 
side  ?  For  effects  so  remarkable  we  need  an  adequate 
cause.  What  that  cause  was  they  themselves  did  not 
doubt.  Jesus  had  been  crucified,  but  that  was  not 
the  end  of  Him.  He  could  not  be  held  by  the  bands 
of  death,  but  God  had  brought  Him  back  from  the 
tomb,  and  in  so  doing  had  lifted  from  Him  the  stigma 
of  the  Cross.  Apart  from  such  a  conviction,  it  lies  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  would 
have  had  no  future.  Christianity  is  built  on  the  con- 
viction of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  who  was  crucified 
had  risen  from  the  dead  and  was  seated  in  glory  at 
the  Father's  right  hand.  It  was  in  virtue  of  this  un- 
wavering conviction  that  the  future  career  of  Chris- 
tianity became  possible.  We.  may  look  back  now  at 
the  Gospel  history  and  feel  that,  quite  independently 
of  the  empty  grave,  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus, 


196     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

culminating  in  His  death,  convince  us  of  His  greatness 
and  divinity.  But,  humanly  speaking,  I  do  not  see 
how  we  should  ever  have  come  to  hear  of  Jesus  at  all 
apart  from  the  disciples'  behef  in  the  Resurrection. 
The  great  thinkers  of  Greece  looked  forward  to  the 
immortaUty  of  the  disembodied  spirit.  The  Jews, 
however,  could  understand  no  such  ideal  as  that ; 
for  them  body  and  spirit  constituted  the  human  per- 
sonality, and  they  would  not  have  assented  to  the 
saying,  "  I  am  a  spirit  and  have  a  body."  A  dis- 
embodied Jesus  would  have  seemed  to  them  a  maimed 
Jesus,  lacking  an  essential  element  of  His  personality. 
Had  Jesus  appeared  in  Greece,  the  Resurrection  would 
not  have  been  so  necessary  from  the  evidential  point 
of  view.  There  are  many  to-day  who  adopt  an  atti- 
tude similar  to  that  which  was  natural  to  Greeks. 
They  do  not  believe  in  a  physical  resurrection — that 
is  a  mere  husk  for  the  kernel,  which  is,  that  Jesus 
lives  and  reigns.  And  certainly  this  is  the  all-important 
thing,  that  Jesus  is  not  a  dead,  but  a  Hving  Christ. 
But  the  denial  of  an  actual  resurrection  does  not  agree 
with  the  representation  in  the  Gospels,  nor,  in  my 
judgment,  with  that  of  Paul. 

But  for  us,  of  course,  the  question  is  not  as  to  the 
behef ;  that  is  practically  admitted  on  all  hands. 
The  question  for  us  is  whether  the  behef  was  true  or 
false.  And  we  must  deal  with  this  question  as  a 
problem  in  history  rather  than  in  theology  in  the 
first  instance.    Our  question  is  not  one  to  be  settled 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  197 

by  appeal  to  writings  whose  narratives  we  accept 
because  we  treat  them  as  inspired,  but  to  documents 
we  must  treat  as  we  would  any  other  documents.  It 
is  a  commonplace  of  critical  method  that  great  weight 
should  be  attached  to  contemporary  documents  and 
to  documents  of  whose  date  and  authorship  we  can 
be  sure.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  we  should  begin 
with  the  testimony  of  Paul. 

And  in  doing  so  it  is  well  to  remind  ourselves  of 
Paul's  exceptional  opportunities  for  investigation  of 
the  facts.  He  had  been  one  of  the  bitterest  opponents 
of  the  Christians.  This  was  not  because  he  misunder- 
stood the  Gospel,  but  because  he  understood  it  so 
weU.  With  his  penetrating  insight  he  had  very 
clearly  perceived  the  drift  of  the  Nazarene  movement. 
He  saw  that  logically  it  involved  the  setting  aside  of 
the  Law  and  the  consequent  loss  by  the  Jew  of  his 
most  precious  religious  privileges,  and  therefore  he 
flung  himself  with  ardour  into  the  work  of  persecution 
just  because  he  realised  the  danger  of  this  new  doctrine. 
It  would  be  inconsistent  with  all  that  we  know  of  his 
subsequent  career  to  suppose  that  he  plied  the  Chris- 
tians with  no  higher  arguments  than  brute  force.  A 
trained  dialectician,  the  master  of  a  keen  and  relent- 
less logic,  deeply  versed  in  the  Scriptures,  conscious 
of  tendencies  in  the  new  religion  which  none  of  its 
adherents  had  realised,  we  may  be  sure  that  he  ap- 
pealed to  violence  only  when  argument  had  failed. 
And  thus  the  Christian  point  of  view  became  familiar 


198    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

to  him,  the  story  of  the  Resurrection  standing  in  the 
first  place.  Those  who  had  brought  Jesus  to  His 
death  were  his  intimate  friends.  The  secret  history 
of  the  trial  was  open  to  him ;  he  could  learn,  as  the 
Christians  could  not  learn,  the  official  version  of  those 
tragic  hours.  Yet  in  spite  of  his  initial  horror  at  the 
blasphemous  doctrine  that  a  crucified  claimant  to 
Messiahship,  notwithstanding  the  curse  of  God's  Law, 
was  God's  Messiah  none  the  less,  in  spite  of  the  bitterly 
distasteful  consequences  involved  in  the  acceptance 
of  Him,  in  spite  of  the  contemptuous  rejection  of 
Jesus  by  the  leaders  of  the  people,  in  spite  of  the 
wildly  improbable  story  which  the  Christians  told, 
in  spite,  finally,  of  the  ruin  of  the  great  career  which 
lay  before  him,  Paul  became  a  convinced  follower  of 
Jesus.  He  had  been  changed  by  what  he  took  to  be 
an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  as  he  was  on  the 
way  to  Damascus,  which  in  a  moment  revolutionised 
his  point  of  view,  and  filled  him  with  an  overpowering 
conviction  of  His  resurrection,  never  to  be  shaken  by 
one  moment's  doubt. 

But  he  learnt  to  know  the  case  from  the  inside. 
He  had  met  the  chief  leaders — Peter,  with  whom  he 
stayed  for  a  fortnight,  and  James,  the  Lord's  brother. 
This  he  tell  us  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  which 
is,  fortunately,  one  of  those  Epistles  accepted  with 
practical  unanimity  by  New  Testament  scholars.  The 
reference  to  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  occurs  many 
times  in  his  Epistles,  but  it  is  only  in  i  Corinthians  xv. 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  199 

that  he  gives  a  list  of  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus. 
He  says  that  He  appeared  to  Peter,  to  His  brother 
James,  to  all  the  apostles,  and  to  five  hundred  brethren 
at  once.  Of  these  five  hundred  he  asserts  that  more 
than  half  were  still  alive  at  the  time  he  wrote.  He 
tells  us,  further,  that  this  Resurrection  took  place  on 
the  third  day.  He  also  insists  that  this  fact  of  the 
Resurrection  is  one  of  the  fundamental  truths  preached 
both  by  the  apostles  and  by  himself.  Although  this 
Epistle  was  written  perhaps  a  quarter  of  a  century 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  it  carries  back  the  evidence 
much  further.  Paul  had  spent  a  fortnight  with  Peter 
three  years  after  his  conversion,  and  was  therefore 
fully  acquainted  with  his  testimony.  We  are  war- 
ranted, then,  in  accepting  Paul's  statement — so  far 
as  this,  at  any  rate — that  almost  immediately  after 
the  death  of  Jesus,  Peter  and  others,  to  the  number 
of  five  hundred,  beheved  that  they  had  seen  the  risen 
Jesus.  We  owe  this  Hst  to  the  fact  that  in  the  rest- 
less intellectual  atmosphere  of  Corinth  there  had  been 
disputes  about  the  Resurrection.  Otherwise  we  should 
have  been  without  this  invaluable  piece  of  evidence. 
It  is  our  earliest  documentary  attestation  to  the  fact 
of  the  Resurrection,  and  therefore  critics  rightly  make 
much  of  it.  Yet  it  must  be  employed  with  certain 
cautions  in  mind. 

First,  it  is  only  a  bare  hst  without  details.  This  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  Paul  is  not  communicating  fresh 
information  to  his  readers,   but  reminding  them  of 


200    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

information  he  had  akeady  given  them  when  he 
founded  the  Church.  Secondly,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  assume  that  the  Hst  of  appearances  is  exhaustive. 
Paul  chooses  those  which  were  best  suited  to  his  pur- 
pose. It  was  therefore  natural  that  he  should  omit 
the  appearance  to  the  women  and  lay  stress  on  the 
appearances  to  those  who  were,  so  to  speak,  the  official 
witnesses  of  the  Resurrection.  Thirdly,  we  must  not 
infer  from  the  absence  of  detail  that  Paul  knew  of 
nothing  but  appearances  ;  in  other  words,  we  must 
not  argue  that  Paul's  sole  ground  for  believing  in  the 
Resurrection  was  the  fact  that  apparitions  of  the 
risen  Jesus  had  been  seen  by  His  disciples. 

It  is  now  practically  agreed  that  shortly  after  Christ's 
death  the  apostles  had  reached  the  conviction  that 
their  Master  was  alive  again.  Those  who  refuse  to 
admit  that  a  physical  resurrection  had  actually  taken 
place  generally  explain  the  beUef  as  due  to  visions 
which  were  not  objective  reaUties,  but  illusions  of  the 
disciples,  and  contagious  illusions.  Most  of  these 
scholars  believe  that  the  appearances  of  Jesus  took 
place  in  Gahlee.  It  was  there  amid  the  famihar  scenes 
that  the  disciples  recovered  from  their  shock,  and  the 
memory  of  Jesus  cast  once  more  its  enchantment  over 
their  minds.  Faith  revived  and  created  for  Peter  the 
vision  of  his  Master.  His  enthusiasm  proved  con- 
tagious, and  the  vision  was  seen  by  one  after  another, 
singly  or  in  groups,  and  in  one  instance  by  more  than 
five  hundred  at  once.    This  is  the  most  hopeful  line 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesm  201 

for  those  to  take  who  reject  the  physical  resurrection. 
Yet  it  is  open  to  the  most  serious  objections,  and  has, 
indeed,  been  submitted  to  vigorous  criticism  by  some 
who  do  not  accept  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection. 
Psychological  illusions  of  this  kind  usually  imply  a 
condition  of  expectancy.  But  the  Gospel  shows  us 
the  disciples  plunged  in  despondency,  and  quite  in- 
credulous when  the  news  of  the  Resurrection  was 
announced  to  them.  If  it  be  said  that  reflection  on 
the  Hfe  of  Jesus  created  a  reaction  in  which  they 
attained  assurance  that  the  Cross  could  not  be  the 
end  of  Him,  I  must  urge  against  this  the  shortness  of 
the  interval.  Weizsacker  emphasises  very  strongly 
that,  as  Paul  is  our  oldest  source,  we  must  be  guided 
by  his  account  in  our  reconstruction  of  the  events. 
Accordingly  he  holds  that  the  first  appearance  was 
to  Peter.  But  he  sees  quite  clearly  that  visions  could 
not  have  been  conjured  up  by  the  third  day  ;  and 
what  adds  to  the  difficulty  is  the  hypothesis  now  re- 
ceived by  several  of  that  school,  that  the  visions  took 
place  in  Gahlee.  If  the  disciples,  as  some  suppose, 
fled  on  the  arrest  of  Jesus,  they  would  not  know 
w^hether  He  had  died  ;  if  they  fled  to  Galilee,  after 
His  death,  as  Weizsacker  thinks,  they  could  have  had 
no  visions  there  so  soon.  But  the  point  which  needs 
attention  is  that  the  attempt  to  lengthen  the  interval 
is  quite  illegitimate.  It  is  Paul  himself  who  tells  us 
that  the  apostles  proclaimed  that  Christ  rose  on  the 
third  day.     Now  there  are  two  points  of  great  im- 


302     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

portance  to  notice  here.  The  first  is  that  Paul  insists 
on  the  Resurrection  as  distinct  from  the  appearances 
of  Christ.  Weizsacker  urges  that  Paul  says  nothing 
of  what  happened  at  the  grave,  to  prove  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  it.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  he  gives 
no  account,  as  do  the  Gospels,  of  appearances  at  the 
grave.  But  the  Resurrection  itself  is  a  concrete  fact 
for  him.  And  what  he  meant  by  the  Resurrection  is 
clear.  It  immediately  follows  the  mention  of  the 
burial,  and  therefore  must  be  explained  as  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  physical  body  ;  and  in  another  place  he 
defines  it  as  a  "  quickening  of  the  mortal  body." 
But  this  can  only  mean  that  the  earliest  apostolic 
tradition  knew  not  only  of  appearances,  but  of  a 
resurrection  of  the  body. 

Further,  we  may  well  ask,  What  would  have  been 
the  point  of  a  reference  to  the  burial  of  Jesus  if  the 
body  that  was  buried  played  no  part  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion ?  If  Paul's  faith  rested  simply  on  appearances 
of  Jesus,  the  body  need  have  played  no  part,  and 
resurrection  would  simply  have  meant  a  manifesta- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  from  heaven.  But  when 
we  remember  that  for  Paul  resurrection  meant  a  quick- 
ening of  the  mortal  body,  and  when  we  read  that 
Christ  was  buried  and  rose  again  the  tliird  day,  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  interpret  him  as  meaning  any- 
thing else  than  that  the  body,  which  was  placed  in  the 
tomb  dead,  was  quickened  into  life,  quitted  the  grave, 
and  appeared  to  the  disciples.    On  the  other  interpre- 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  203 

tation  Paul  need  have  said  no  more  than  that  Jesus 
died  and  on  the  third  day  appeared  to  the  disciples. 
But  in  a  summary  statement  of  this  kind  we  are  not 
entitled  to  treat  the  burial  as  irrelevant  and  the 
Resurrection  as  identical  with  the  appearances  ;  each 
of  the  four  points — death,  burial,  resurrection,  appear- 
ance— was  vital  to  his  case.  And  therefore  we  may 
conclude  that  Paul  himself  had  no  doubt  that  the 
death  and  burial  of  Jesus  were  followed  by  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  and  the  leaving  of  the  tomb. 

I  pass  on  to  another  point  which  emerges  from 
Paul's  statement.  Paul  asserts  that  Jesus  was  raised 
the  third  day.  Let  us  remember  that  we  are  dealing 
with  the  evidence  of  a  contemporary  of  Jesus  who 
speaks  after  he  has  familiarised  himself  with  the  case 
for  the  Resurrection  and  against  it,  that  he  speaks 
while  many  of  the  original  witnesses  are  still  alive, 
including  the  greater  part  of  five  hundred  disciples 
to  whom  Jesus  appeared  at  one  time.  Let  us  also 
remember  that  the  majority  of  those  who  disbelieve 
in  the  Resurrection  allow  that  we  must  treat  Paul  as 
our  primary  witness  and  prefer  him  to  the  rest.  If 
there  is  one  detail  in  the  narrative  that  may  legiti- 
mately be  pressed,  it  is  this  chronological  note.  On 
the  basis  of  Paul's  account  Weizsacker  asserts  that 
the  first  appearance  was  to  Peter,  which  Paul  does 
not  say  ;  while  he  denies  that  anything  happened  on 
the  third  day,  which  Paul  ver>^  definitely  affirms.  It 
is  hardly  critical  to  play  fast  and  loose  with  chosen 


204    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

authorities  in  this  way.  If  Paul's  testimony  proves 
anything,  it  proves  that  the  disciples  believed  that 
the  physical  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  grave  had 
taken  place  on  the  third  day. 

A  further  serious  difficulty  which  may  be  urged 
against  the  vision  hypothesis  is  the  number  of  those 
who  saw  what  they  beUeved  to  be  the  risen  Christ. 
Leaving  aside  all  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  confining 
ourselves  to  Paul,  we  have  his  statement  that  Christ 
appeared  to  more  than  five  hundred  at  once,  and  that 
the  majority  of  these  were  still  Hving  at  the  time  he 
wrote.  It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  question  this  testi- 
mony, for  Paul  uses  it  as  evidence  against  those  who 
doubted  the  Resurrection,  and  could  have  discredited 
it  if  untrue.  We  are  therefore  left  with  the  stupendous 
difficulty  of  a  subjective  illusion  of  vision  affecting 
five  hundred  people  at  once. 

Another  difficulty  is  that  the  visions  cover  a  brief 
period  only.  This  would  be  natural  if  the  disciples 
had  not  been  preoccupied  with  the  thought  of  Christ. 
When  our  friends  die,  our  thoughts  naturally  turn  much 
to  them  for  a  brief  period  after  their  death.  But 
gradually  the  vivid  impressions  fade,  and  other  duties 
command  our  interest.  If  it  had  been  so  with  the 
disciples'  thoughts  of  Jesus,  the  fact  that  the  visions 
soon  ceased  could  be  easily  accounted  for.  But  He 
was  the  central  object  of  their  thought  and  love. 
Their  ardent  hope  was  concentrated  on  the  ex- 
pectation of  His  return.    It  was  precisely  the  state  of 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  205 

mind  from  which  visions  might  have  been  anticipated. 
Yet  there  are  none.  What  does  this  prove,  except 
that  the  early  Christians  were  not  the  deluded  en- 
thusiasts that  some  beUeve  them  to  be,  and  therefore 
that  the  brief  period  over  which  the  appearances 
extend  guarantees  their  genuineness  ? 

Nor  are  these  the  only  difficulties.  If  the  body  did 
not  rise,  what  became  of  it  ?  We  have  good  grounds 
for  beUeving  that  the  grave  was  empty.  No  doubt 
if  the  visions  took  place  in  GaHlee,  at  some  consider- 
able interval  after  the  death,  our  grounds  for  beUeving 
this  would  not  be  so  strong.  But  I  have  already  shown 
that  Paul's  statement  as  to  the  third  day  must  be 
accepted  as  decisive,  and,  if  so,  the  visions  cannot  be 
placed  in  GaHlee,  for  which  a  longer  interval  is  re- 
quired. We  must  therefore  assume  that  they  took 
place  in  Jerusalem.  But,  if  so,  it  is  not  credible  that 
the  apostles  should  have  omitted  to  make  sure  of  the 
Resurrection  by  actual  visit  to  the  grave.  They  could 
hardly  have  faced  the  authorities  with  such  confidence 
if  they  had  not  known  that  the  grave  was  empty. 
The  narratives  have  every  probability  on  their  side 
in  their  emphasis  on  the  reluctance  of  the  disciples  to 
accept  the  evidence.  This  reluctance  did  not,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  evangelists,  reflect  any  credit  on  them,  and 
they  would  have  had  no  temptation  to  invent  it.  We 
may  be  glad  of  it,  however,  for  it  shows  that  the 
proof  had  to  be  forced  upon  them.  The  empty 
grave  does  not  disprove  the  vision  theory,  but,  taken 


2o6    Christianity :  its  Natitre  and  its   Truth 

with  the  other  difficulties,  it  may  fairly  be  said  to 
do  so. 

The  only  other  theoiy  put  forward  by  those  who 
reject  the  physical  resurrection  which  calls  for  discus- 
sion is  that  there  really  were  no  visions  at  all.  This 
view,  of  which  the  late  Dr.  WilUam  Mackintosh  was 
one  of  the  ablest  supporters,  rests  on  the  assumption 
that  the  language  of  the  disciples  was  misunderstood. 
They  meant  no  more  than  that  Jesus  still  lived,  not 
in  the  physical  body,  but  in  spiritual  presence.  It  was 
reflection  on  the  life  and  words  of  Jesus  which  con- 
vinced them  that  He  could  not  have  passed  from  them. 
He  still  lived  and  still  worked.  Death  had  not  con- 
quered Him,  it  had  but  changed  the  conditions  of  His 
life.  One  of  them  boldly  seized  this  great  conviction, 
and  communicated  his  own  glowing  enthusiasm  to 
others.  The  most  obvious  criticism  to  pass  on  this 
is  that  if  they  had  meant  this,  it  is  strange  that  they 
should  have  expressed  something  quite  different.  To 
a  Jew  resurrection  meant  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
A  still  more  serious  objection  is  that  Paul  undoubtedly, 
as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  understood  the  apostles 
to  mean  this.  It  is  quite  out  of  the  question  to  sup- 
pose that  he  misunderstood  them,  for  his  knowledge 
of  the  facts  is  too  detailed,  and  so  keen  an  intellect 
could  not  have  left  the  central  fact  obscure.  Since 
the  apostles  cannot  have  deceived  him,  they  certainly 
believed  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Christ ;  and  if 
the  vision  hypothesis  be  discarded,  we  must  believe 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  207 

that  He  really  appeared.  Further,  this  theory  gives 
no  satisfactory  explanation  of  repeated  appearances  to 
the  same  people.  If  the  appearance  to  Peter  means 
simply  that  Peter  attained  the  conviction  of  Jesus* 
continued  life,  what  interpretation  must  be  placed  on 
His  appearance  to  him  among  the  eleven,  and  again 
among  those  whom  Paul  styles  "  aU  the  apostles  "  ? 
Did  he  attain  this  conviction  on  three  separate  occa- 
sions ?  Such  oscillation  of  belief  certainly  never 
occurred. 

There  is  another  view  which  is  much  nearer  the 
original  position.  This  is  that  the  appearances  were 
not  hallucinations,  but  were  merely  spiritual  in  char- 
acter, and  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  not  reanimated. 
This  position  could  be  held  with  the  admission  of  the 
empty  grave,  and,  inasmuch  as  none  of  our  canonical 
sources  represent  the  disciples  as  witnessing  the 
Resurrection  itself,  it  might  be  accommodated  not, 
indeed,  to  Paul's  view  of  what  happened,  but  to  the 
historical  inferences  we  are  entitled  to  draw  from  his 
language.  Nevertheless  it  is  exposed  to  difficulties. 
In  the  first  place,  the  Gospels  do  represent  the  body 
as  subjected  to  physical  tests.  Secondly,  we  have  to 
find  some  plausible  explanation  for  the  absence  of  the 
body  from  the  tomb.  It  is,  of  course,  quite  easy  to 
invent  explanations  with  a  little  ingenuity.  But  have 
we  gained  very  much  by  doing  so  in  the  way  of  making 
the  event  more  in  harmony  with  commonplace  ex- 
perience ?     The  combination  of  the  appearances  of 


2o8    Ckristtanity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

what  was  taken  to  be  the  body  with  the  absence  of 
the  body  from  the  tomb  is  a  coincidence  so  striking 
that,  if  we  are  willing  to  admit  the  possibility  of  the 
event,  the  Gospel  statement  of  it  provides  the  most 
natural  explanation. 

And  do  not  let  us  forget  that  we  are  deaUng  with 
the  most  crucial  event  in  history.  It  is  not  with  a 
light  heart  that  we  can  plead  for  incidents  so  ab- 
normal, but  yet  we  may  undertake  the  task  with  a 
due  sense  of  its  seriousness  when  we  remember  of 
whom  it  is  we  are  speaking,  and  all  that  He  has  meant 
for  the  world.  It  may  seem  easier  at  first  sight  to 
brush  the  whole  story  away  as  the  merest  folly.  But 
when  that  has  been  done  the  task  of  unbelief  is  only 
beginning.  For  it  must  explain  Jesus,  it  must  explain 
Christianity,  it  must  account  for  all  its  marvellous 
triumphs  ;  and  till  it  has  succeeded  in  doing  so  we 
may  still  repose  our  trust  in  Him  who  was  dead  and 
is  alive  for  evermore. 


CHAPTER    XIII 
THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 

I  HAVE  pointed  out  in  an  earlier  chapter  that  the 
Christian  rehgion  is  distinguished  by  the  position 
it  assigns  to  its  Founder.  While  we  claim  that  His 
teaching  surpasses  in  spiritual  insight  and  power  the 
teaching  of  all  other  founders,  yet  we  insist  that  the 
supreme  contribution  He  made  to  religion  was  not 
what  He  said,  but  what  He  was  and  what  He  did. 
And  He  is  this  to  us  in  virtue  of  the  intrinsic  character 
of  His  Person — He  is  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  who 
has  become  one  with  us  in  all  things  except  our  sin. 
Before  we  inquire  whether  this  claim  for  Him  can  be 
justified  let  us  think  what  it  means.  It  means,  first 
of  ail,  that  in  Jesus  we  have  a  revelation  of  the  in- 
most nature  of  God.  If  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  then 
in  His  earthly  Ufe  we  have  a  translation  of  God's 
moral  and  spiritual  character  out  of  the  speech  of 
eternity  into  the  speech  of  time.  We  no  longer  have 
a  mere  description  of  God  with  all  the  inadequacy  of 
human  language,  but  we  are  face  to  face  with  God 
H.mself  living  within  the  hmits  of  our  humanity  His 
own  perfect  Ufe.  In  the  next  place,  we  have  a  pledge 
of  God's  love.  For  if  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity 
r  209 


2IO    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

is  true,  it  means  that  for  the  sake  of  man  God  did 
not  flinch  from  the  uttermost  sacrifice,  but  gave  His 
own  Son  to  be  one  with  us  in  all  our  lot,  shrinking 
from  no  excruciating  extreme  of  misery.  The  In- 
carnation teaches  us  that  God  loves  us  better  than  He 
loves  Himself. 

But  how  are  we  to  be  assured  that  the  doctrine  is 
true  ?  We  must  not  be  content  to  invoke  external 
credentials,  the  miracles  of  Jesus  which  found  their 
climax  in  the  Resurrection.  Not  that  these  credentials 
are  valueless.  If  on  independent  grounds  we  beheve 
that  the  career  of  Jesus  was  marked  by  the  exhibition 
of  these  strange  powers  culminating  in  the  escape  from 
the  grip  of  death,  we  shall  feel  that  these  prepare  us 
for  a  very  extraordinary  estimate  of  the  character  of 
His  Personahty.  And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are 
convinced  by  our  present  line  of  inquiry  that  a  strong 
case  can  be  made  out  for  His  Divinity  we  shall  find 
our  conviction  supported  by  the  miracles.  But  the 
main  stress  of  our  proof  must  lie  in  the  impression 
made  upon  us  by  Jesus  Himself. 

When  we  set  out  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Jesus 
it  is  well  to  understand  precisely  what  we  desire  to 
prove.  This  will  depend  on  our  notion  of  what  con- 
stitutes Divinity.  It  will  not  do  to  demonstrate  that 
His  career  displayed  the  possession  of  omnipotence  and 
omniscience.  This  might  content  those  who  had  a 
merely  pagan  idea  of  God,  but  for  ourselves  this  is 
impossible.    Those  who  have  sat  at  the  feet  of  the 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  211 

world's  great  moral  teachers,  still  more  those  who 
are  familiar  with  Scripture,  will  insist  that  no  being, 
however  powerful  and  wise,  can  be  God  to  us  who  does 
not  exhibit  the  loftiest  perfection  of  character.  Ac* 
cordingly,  as  we  seek  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
we  must  start  with  His  character.  Failure  here  is 
irretrievable.  It  can  be  redeemed  by  no  success,  how- 
ever splendid,  in  other  realms.  I  begin,  then,  with  an 
attempt  to  show  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus.  The  task 
might  at  first  sight  seem  hopeless.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  the  doctrine  creates  a  prejudice  against  itself 
on  the  score  of  its  antecedent  improbability.  Why 
should  we  make  an  exception  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  and 
believe  that  He  was  exempt  from  a  failure,  the  reality 
of  which  we  should  assert  in  every  other  case  ?  Were 
we  told,  with  reference  to  any  other  character  in 
history,  that  he  had  been  free  from  sin,  we  should 
refuse  to  believe  it.  Moreover,  moral  character  eludes 
the  closest  observation,  since  it  is  only  imperfectly 
revealed  in  deed  and  word.  No  one  can  fully  enter 
into  the  recesses  of  the  soul  and  read  it  in  its  naked 
reality.  And  if  we  cannot  do  this  even  with  our  most 
intimate  friends,  what  chance  have  we  of  discovering 
the  inmost  character  of  one  who  lived  nearly  two 
thousand  years  ago,  concerning  whom  we  have  very 
meagre  information  ?  To  the  first  of  these  objections 
it  may  be  replied  that  our  natural  prejudice  is  no  con- 
clusive argument  against  the  truth  of  the  position. 
It  justifies  us  in  exposing  it  to  exceptionally  severe 


212     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

scrutiny,  but  in  any  case  where  sinlessness  is  alleged 
we  have  no  right  as  scientific  inquirers  to  excuse  our- 
selves from  the  investigation  on  the  ground  of  in- 
trinsic improbability.  The  force  of  the  second  objec- 
tion is  real,  but  I  hope  the  examination  itself  will  show 
that  we  can  reach  a  moral  certainty  along  the  lines 
of  inquiry  that  I  adopt. 

I  begin,  then,  with  the  impression  which  is  made  on 
ourselves  by  the  presentation  of  the  character  in  the 
Gospels.  The  best  judges  of  human  nature  have 
united  with  the  experts  in  saintliness  in  pronouncing 
the  character  one  of  unearthly  purity,  completeness, 
and  perfection.  I  need  not  adduce  quotations  to 
prove  this  point,  they  are  familiar  enough.  I  am  well 
aware  that  there  are  those  who  have  discovered  flaws 
in  it,  but  I  think  I  shall  be  doing  them  no  injustice 
if  I  say  that  their  criticism  of  Christ  has  been  simply 
a  demonstration  of  their  incompetence  for  the  task. 
The  fact  that  a  microscopic  scrutiny  has  detected 
only  such  trivial  blemishes  might  have  prompted  a 
modest  doubt  whether  in  a  character  otherwise  so 
complete  and  stainless  the  blemishes  were  really  there, 
or  whether  the  discovery  was  not  rather  due  to  some 
ob  iquity  in  the  critic's  vision.  But  this  general  ver- 
dict forces  on  us  the  question.  How  did  the  evangelists 
come  to  depict  a  character  of  that  kind  ?  Even  had 
they  possessed  a  more  exquisite  delicacy,  a  more 
universal  breadth  of  moral  perception  than  seems 
probable,  how  were  they  to  fasliion  a  character  which 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  213 

in  all  situations  makes  the  same  impression,  and  never 
betray  it  into  a  lapse  from  the  loftiest  standard  ? 
They  were  themselves  sinful  men,  with  their  moral 
perceptions  warped  and  distorted  by  sin.  How  could 
the  stream  have  risen  above  its  source  ?  How  could 
the  sinful  have  imagined  the  smless  ?  And  further, 
how,  after  they  had  imagined  Him,  could  they  have 
successfully  conducted  Him  through  so  many  scenes, 
set  Him  in  conditions  so  varied,  exposed  to  the  play 
of  forces  so  intricate,  and  yet  have  avoided  all  im- 
pression of  artifice  and  charmed  us  by  the  simple 
reaUsm  of  their  narrative  ?  Their  success  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  they  were  drawing  from  real  Ufe,  that 
the  Figure  of  Jesus  is  a  portrait,  not  a  creation  of 
imaginative  genius. 

But  the  existence  of  the  portrait  itself  testifies  to 
a  conception  of  Jesus  which  was  prevalent  in  the 
Christian  Church.  This  w^as  a  conviction  of  His  sin- 
lessness.  Even  if  we  were  to  grant  that  none  of  the 
evangelists  knew  Jesus  personally,  which  would  be  a 
very  great  concession,  yet  the  material  of  their  narra- 
tive was  formed  and  current  in  the  Church  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles.  Hence  we  are  confronted 
with  the  fact  that  a  tradition,  which  ultimately  goes 
back  to  themselves,  which  was  formed  in  their  own 
day  and  under  their  eyes,  exhibited  a  sinless  Jesus. 
We  may  infer  that  this  was  not  without  their  own 
sanction.  But  not  only  have  we  a  portrait  in  which 
sinlessness  is  imphcit,   we   have   the  explicit  claim 


214     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

made  for  Him  by  New  Testament  writers.  It  is  made 
by  Paul  in  letters  composed  before  any  of  our  Gospels 
were  written.  It  is  made  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
John.  It  may,  of  course,  be  urged  that  many  critics 
deny  i  Peter  and  i  John  to  the  apostles  whose  names 
they  bear.  At  any  rate,  they  testify  to  the  impression 
which  prevailed  in  the  Church  at  the  time  when  they 
were  written.  But  it  is  not  possible  to  dispose  of 
Paul's  evidence  in  so  easy  a  way.  If  it  be  urged  that 
Paul  did  not  know  Jesus,  I  reply  that  he  knew  the 
Christians  who  had  known  Him  intimately,  and  he 
speaks  of  the  sinlessness  in  a  matter-of-fact  way,  which 
impHes  that  he  could  take  this  estimate  of  Jesus  for 
granted  among  his  fellow-Christians.  He  never  sets 
out  to  prove  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  although  with 
his  tremendous  conviction  of  the  universality  of  sin 
he  must  have  been  aUve  to  the  obvious  difficulties 
which  the  claim  would  present.  Yet  he  never  seems 
to  imagine  that  any  Christian  will  challenge  it. 

V/e  may  accordingly  infer  from  these  two  lines  of 
argument  that  the  original  apostles  asserted  the  sin- 
lessness of  Jesus.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  this 
does  not  carry  us  so  far  as  we  wish  to  go,  since  their 
opinion  was  an  inference  from  their  observation  of 
Jesus  ;  but  no  observation  could  carry  us  behind  the 
external  facts  and  reveal  to  us  the  hidden  springs  of 
action.  In  reply  to  this,  however,  it  must  be  said 
that  their  attitude  towards  Jesus  involves  something 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  215 

much  more  than  this.  For  it  included  the  impression 
made  upon  them  of  the  estimate  which  Jesus  formed 
of  Himself.  They  could  not  have  been  in  such  famiUar 
intercourse  with  Him  without  it  coming  to  light,  over 
and  over  again,  that  Jesus  thought  of  Himself  as 
sinful,  if  that  had  really  been  His  inmost  conviction. 
Jesus  could  not  have  allowed  the  impression  of  sin- 
lessness  to  be  created  if  He  knew  that  it  did  not  con'e- 
spond  with  the  facts.  There  must  have  been  many 
occasions  when  Jesus'  own  consciousness  of  sinfulness, 
had  He  possessed  it,  must  have  forced  itself  into  pro- 
minence. For  the  very  conditions  of  His  life  with 
them  made  it  imperative  that  He  should  speak  to 
them  in  the  most  searching  way  about  sin  and  peni- 
tence, not  simply  in  outward  manifestation,  but  in 
secret  thought  and  disposition.  How  could  He  utter 
these  penetrating  words  and  yet  always  leave  them 
with  the  impression  that  they  had  no  appHcation  to 
Himself  ?  We  may  therefore  infer  with  confidence, 
from  the  apostles'  conviction  of  His  sinlessness,  that 
it  was  a  fact. 

But  we  have  a  stronger  Hne  of  evidence  than  the 
impression  made  on  ourselves  by  the  Gospel  portrait, 
or  the  impression  made  on  the  apostles  by  their  ex- 
perience of  Jesus,  and  that  is  the  testimony  of  Jesus' 
own  consciousness  to  His  freedom  from  sin.  It  might 
be  urged  that  no  sinful  fallible  beings  are  ultimately 
in  a  position  to  decide  upon  this.  I  think,  indeed, 
that  we  are  led,  by  the  two  lines  of  evidence  I  have 


2 1 6    Christianity  :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

just  presented,  to  a  very  high  degree  of  probability. 
In  my  judgment,  however,  what  definitely  settles  the 
question  is  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Himself.  This  is 
of  various  kinds,  and  in  estimating  its  weight  we  must 
bear  certain  considerations  in  mind.  In  the  first  place, 
we  have  to  remember  that  Jesus  stands  unrivalled  as 
an  ethical  teacher.  No  one  has  so  reaUsed  the  fact  of 
sin  and  its  heinousness,  read  it  in  its  subtlest  forms 
with  such  sure  and  penetrating  gaze,  has  recoiled  with 
such  horror  and  loathing  from  it,  has  realised  its  all- 
pervading  presence,  as  He  has  done.  There  is  no  one 
who  has  more  fervently  condemned  everything  in  the 
nature  of  hypocrisy,  or  whose  sincerity  we  may  more 
completely  trust.  Moreover,  since  it  has  often  been 
observed  that  an  advance  in  holiness  brings  with  it  a 
keener  consciousness  of  imperfection,  that  the  con- 
fessions of  the  holiest  are  those  most  filled  with  con- 
trition, we  may  expect  here,  if  anywhere,  to  have  the 
keenest  sense  of  moral  failure  and  of  unworthiness 
before  God.  But  we  find  nothing  of  the  kind.  His 
only  agony  is  for  the  sin  of  others,  there  is  none  for 
His  own.  He  demanded  penitence  and  was  a  foe  to 
aU  self-righteousness,  He  would  have  shrunk  with 
horror  from  any  exaggerated  claim  for  Himself,  yet 
there  was  no  tinge  of  remorse  or  repentance,  no  expres- 
sion of  His  own  need  for  forgiveness,  no  conviction  of 
sin,  no  tragic  note  as  He  looked  back  on  His  career. 
His  fight  with  temptation  was  more  terrible  than 
ours,  yet  His  soul  was  not  seamed  with  the  scars  of 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  217 

defeat.     What  does  all  this  mean  ?     In  the  case  of 
some  it  might  mean  an  utter  bhndness  of  moral  per- 
ception, or  it  might  testify  to  a  deep  insincerity.    But 
both  of  these  are  impossible  in  the  case  of  Jesus; 
hence  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  He  be- 
lieved Himself  to  be  sinless,  and  was  right  in  doing  so. 
And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  other  considera- 
tions.   If  there  is  one  thing  well  attested  in  the  records 
of  His  life,  it  is  that  He  claimed  to  be  the  Judge  of 
mankind.     This  claim  in  itself  involved  sinlessness. 
For  how  could  a  sinful  man  presume  to  judge  his 
fellow-sinners  ?    I  might  add  that  it  is  a  claim  to  be 
able  to  read  the  inmost  secrets  of  men's  hearts,  for 
only  one  who  possessed  this  faculty  could  pass  a 
righteous  judgment.     It  is  a  claim  also  to  Divine 
wisdom  which  should  enable  Him  not  only  to  know 
the  facts,  but  to  take  the  right  action  upon  them. 
And,  lastly,  it  implies  the  Divine  right  to  be  the 
arbiter  of  men's  destiny.    Moreover,  He  claimed  the 
power  to  forgive  sins  and  actually  did  forgive  them, 
and  He  believed  that  His  death  stood  in  a  vital  rela- 
tion to  the  pardon  of  human  sin.     Now  this  would 
have  been  impossible  in  one  who  combined  so  keen  a 
sense  of  the  moral  ideal  with  a  consciousness  of  per- 
sonal sinfulness  on  His  own  part.    We  may  feel,  then, 
that  the  evidence  carries  us  far  beyond  the  point  that 
Jesus  was  a  very  good  man  or  even  the  best  of  men. 
Between  Him  and  us  there  is  a  deep  gulf  fixed  ;  in  His 
sinlessness  He  stands  with  God,  not  with  ourselves. 


2i8    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Now  what  explanation  are  we  to  give  of  this  fact, 
which  constitutes  Him  so  strange  an  exception  to  the 
common  lot  ?  What  is  the  secret  of  personaUty  that 
lies  behind  the  solitariness  in  character  ?  We  must, 
of  course,  beware  of  so  interpreting  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus  as  to  regard  it  as  a  pale  negative  quality.  It 
is  not  the  mere  absence  of  defect,  but  positive  perfec- 
tion of  character  that  we  claim  for  Jesus.  This  is  a 
moral  miracle  compared  with  which  the  physical 
miracles  fall  into  a  subordinate  place.  We  are,  there- 
fore, forced  to  enter  on  other  lines  of  investigation 
that  shall  solve  for  us  the  mystery  of  His  being.  The 
Church  has  expressed  its  conception  of  its  Founder 
in  the  confession  of  Him  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God. 
This  is  a  loftier  claim  for  Him  than  the  claim  of  sin- 
lessness, though  it  is  necessary  to  demonstrate  the 
sinlessness  before  we  can  accept  the  Divinity.  Now, 
there  are  various  arguments  which  converge  upon  the 
vindication  of  the  Church's  confession.  We  have  the 
place  which  He  fills  in  history,  and  especially  in  re- 
ligion. There  is  the  impression  He  made  upon  His 
followers,  there  is  the  claim  which  He  made  for  Him- 
self. It  will  be  my  duty  to  conduct  the  investigation 
along  these  lines. 

I  pass  on,  then,  to  consider  the  place  which  Jesus 
holds  in  history.  He  stands  in  a  relation  ahke  to  the 
Past  which  lay  behind  and  the  Future  which  stretched 
before  Him.  The  former  we  may  summarise  in  the 
familiar  term,   "  the  preparation  for  Christ."     Pre- 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  219 

eminently  this  preparation  is  associated  with  Israel, 
and  that  not  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  formerly 
presented.  The  old  argument  from  prophecy  threw 
its  emphasis  on  details  in  Christ's  hfe  which,  it  said, 
had  been  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  Now,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  show  that  much  which  passed  for  proof 
will  not  bear  the  interpretation  put  on  it.  But,  apart 
from  this,  such  arguments  do  not  in  themselves  appeal 
to  the  intellectual  temper  of  our  time.  And  it  laboured 
under  this  general  defect,  that  it  could  not,  as  we  say, 
see  the  wood  for  the  trees.  The  great  prediction  of 
Christ  is  the  history  and  religion  of  Israel  taken  as  a 
whole.  In  Him  the  long  process  attained  its  climax 
and  achieved  its  goal.  We  see  through  the  whole 
history  God  working  by  the  principle  of  selection. 
One  nation  is  chosen  from  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
and  out  of  it  one  tribe  is  chosen.  And  in  that  there 
is  a  remnant  of  those  who  looked  for  the  Consolation 
of  Israel,  and  out  of  the  remnant  the  Messiah  is  bom. 
The  development  led  up  to  Christ,  and  found  in  Him 
its  fit  crown. 

The  people  of  Israel  had  been  gradually  trained  by 
God's  long  self-revelation  till  it  was  possible  for  the 
final  disclosure  to  be  made.  But  what  is  true  of  the 
history  of  Israel  has  its  counterpart  in  those  of  Greece 
and  Rome.  Greek  culture  and  philosophy  created  a 
terminology  and  a  mould  into  which  the  new  truth 
might  be  cast,  and  by  its  own  failure  to  reahse  its 
ideals,  pointed  to  the  need  of  some  new  power.    For 


220    Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  world  at  the  coming  of  Christ  presented  the 
mournful  spectacle  of  moral  collapse.  The  con- 
quests of  Alexander,  followed  by  those  of  Rome,  had 
created  the  field  that  the  Gospel  needed,  bringing  the 
larger  part  of  the  progressive  peoples  into  one  empire, 
and  so  breaking  down  national  barriers  as  to  prepare 
them  for  a  universal  rehgion.  If  Jesus  came  just  at 
this  propitious  time,  we  have  some  reasons  for  be- 
Ueving  that  it  was  no  mere  chance  that  He  came  when 
He  did.  It  would  rather  seem  that  there  had  been 
dehberate  preparation  for  Him,  that  He  had  come  in 
the  fullness  of  time.  In  other  words,  God  had  Himself 
controlled  the  course  of  history  that  these  converging 
lines  might  meet  on  Him. 

And  this  argument  is  confirmed  by  that  from  the 
history  of  Christianity  itself.  It  might  be  said,  the 
success  of  Christianity  is  not  so  wonderful  after  all, 
for  on  your  own  showing  the  soil  was  ready  for  it. 
No  doubt  this  does  help  to  account  for  its  rapid  growth, 
but  the  fact  that  the  soil  was  ready  has  to  be  ex- 
plained. Yet,  when  everything  has  been  said,  the 
actual  success  of  Christianity  was  of  the  most  startling 
kind.  A  Gahlean  carpenter  proclaims  a  new  religion 
of  the  most  exalted  spirituaHty  and  morality.  He 
achieves  for  a  time  great  popularity,  but  is  crucified 
by  the  Roman  procurator  at  the  instigation  of  the 
rehgious  and  political  leaders  of  His  own  countrymen. 
A  small  band  of  disciples  begins  to  preach  that  He 
has  risen  from  the  dead,  and  on  this  basis  the  new 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  221 

religion  spreads,  and  in  a  very  brief  period  penetrates 
every  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  the  GaUlean 
Peasant,  who  had  a  short  time  before  been  crucified, 
has  won  the  allegiance  of  those  who  owe  none  to 
Caesar.  How  was  it  that  a  religion  which  came  out  of 
the  bosom  of  a  people  so  despised  and  hated  as  the 
Jews,  whose  Founder  had  died  a  death  counted  accursed 
by  the  Jews,  and  which  for  all  nations  had  a  stigma 
resting  on  it  far  worse  than  with  us  attaches  to  the 
gallows,  a  religion  attested  by  a  story  of  a  resurrection 
that  must  have  seemed  to  the  cultured  Greek  and 
Roman  a  wild  absurdity  fitly  matching  so  stupendous 
a  folly  as  the  worship  of  a  crucified  Jew,  how  was  it 
that  such  a  religion  thus  made  its  way  ?  Its  lofty 
teaching  ought  to  have  won  for  it  recognition,  it  may 
be  said,  yet  the  fact  remains  that  Epictetus  spoke  of 
the  Christians  with  cold  disdain  and  Marcus  AureUus 
bitterly  persecuted  them.  And  to  the  populace  such 
teaching  appealed  still  less.  To  the  common  people 
the  Christians  were  atheists.  They  would  have  been 
less  unpopular  had  they  had  sacrifices  in  their  worship 
or  images,  but  they  had  none  of  these  things.  It  was, 
moreover,  incompatible  with  aU  other  religions,  so 
that  Christians  could  not  conform  to  many  of  the 
usages  of  social  Ufe,  which  involved  a  recognition  of 
heathenism.  Worse  still,  they,  could  not  sacrifice  to 
the  genius  of  the  emperor,  and  were  thus  regarded  as 
disloyal  citizens.  Meeting  in  secrecy,  since  it  was 
dangerous  to  hold  their  assemblies  otherwise,  dark  and 


22  2     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Trtith 

shameful  stories  were  widely  circulated  and  easily 
believed.  The  religion  did  not  come  with  the  glamour 
of  a  hoary  antiquity,  nor  was  it  a  national  religion, 
such  as  would  have  been  permitted  by  Rome  for 
political  reasons.  Without  the  prestige  of  wealth  or 
learning,  of  social  position  or  civil  power,  it  permeated 
all  ranks  of  society  with  a  swiftness  that  seems  almost 
incredible.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that  it  had  its 
rivals.  It  was  not  the  only  new  cult  which  competed 
with  the  old  religions  for  popular  favour.  Why  did 
the  reUgion  of  Jesus  conquer  the  empire,  while  Mithras 
and  Isis  and  Serapis  are  barely  known  to  the  vast 
majority  of  mankind  ?  Circumstances  favoured  them 
far  more  than  they  did  Christianity.  Was  it  not  be- 
cause Christianity  was  the  word  of  the  living  God, 
which  could  not  return  to  Him  void  ? 

And  we  have  more  than  the  early  triumph  of  Chris- 
tianity. It  has  formed  one  of  the  most  important 
elements  in  the  history  of  the  last  sixteen  or  seventeen 
centuries.  No  one  can  be  other  than  amazed  if  he 
seeks  to  free  his  mind  from  the  blunting  influence  of 
familiarity  and  asks  himself  what  it  means  that  so 
vast  a  phenomenon  with  such  stupendous  consequences 
has  struck  into  the  stream  of  human  history.  Every 
student  of  history  is  aware  how  enormous  the  influ- 
ence of  Christianity  has  been.  I  do  not  labour  this 
point,  but  we  must  have  some  adequate  cause  for  an 
effect  so  great.  It  will  be  worth  while,  however,  to 
touch  on  an  objection,  to  which  I  have  already  alluded 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  223 

and  which  might  readily  occur  to  the  minds  of  some 
readers.  It  might  be  said,  with  some  show  of  reason, 
that  Christianity  has  worked  for  evil  as  well  as  for 
good.  The  cruelty,  the  ferocity,  the  mutual  hatred  of 
Christians,  the  horrors  of  the  Inquisition,  the  fiendish 
atrocities  connected  with  the  conquest  of  America,  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  fires  of  Smithfield, 
the  persecution  of  the  Scottish  Covenanters,  it  might 
be  said,  must  be  debited  to  the  account  if  a  fair  balance 
is  to  be  struck.  And  then  the  hostility  which  the 
Church  has  displayed  to  science,  its  frequent  condona- 
tion or  even  active  support  of  tyranny,  its  sacrifice  of 
the  poor  to  the  rich,  of  the  weak  to  the  powerful,  might 
also  be  urged  against  it.  It  is,  indeed,  the  shame  of 
Christians  that  these  things  should  be  so  largely  true. 
But  there  are  several  considerations  to  be  borne  in 
mind.  In  the  first  place,  Jesus  Himself  gives  no 
warrant  for  conduct  so  reprehensible.  His  precept  and 
practice  ahke  condemn  it.  It  is  only  a  deep  unfaith- 
fulness to  His  teaching  which  is  expressed  in  such 
things  as  these.  Moreover,  it  has  passed  into  a  pro- 
verb that  nothing  is  so  bad  as  the  corruption  of  what 
is  best,  and  this  in  itself  accounts  for  a  large  element 
in  the  indictment.  The  very  excellence  of  Christianity 
is  attested  by  the  horrible  character  attached  to  its 
corrupt  forms.  But,  apart  from  this,  we  need  to  dis- 
criminate. Life  is  a  complex  thing,  and  it  is  no  simple 
matter  to  disentangle  the  threads.  And  it  is  very 
easy  to  urge  as  an  objection  to  Christianity  what  really 


224    Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

does  not  belong  to  it  at  all.  Let  us  consider  the  his- 
torical situation.  The  Gospel  came  into  the  world  as 
leaven  ;  it  was  set  originally  in  a  Jewish,  but  quickly 
spread  into  a  Gentile,  environment.  It  was  thus 
planted  in  a  deeply  corrupt  paganism,  bringing  into 
it  new  ideas  of  pity  and  tenderness,  of  meekness  and 
purity,  of  patient  endurance  and  triumphant  hope. 
It  brought  a  loftier  conception  of  God,  of  religion,  and 
of  morality.  But  it  was  natural  that  those  who  came 
under  its  influence  should  be  imperfectly  Christianised. 
The  New  Testament  itself  makes  that  plain.  The 
spectacle  of  the  Corinthian  Church  is  very  disenchant- 
ing. A  more  deep-seated  corruption  was  for  a  long 
time  kept  at  bay  by  the  illegal  status  of  Christianity 
which  might  at  any  time  lead  to  persecution.  When, 
however,  Christianity  became  the  religion  of  the 
empire  streams  of  pagans  entered  the  Church,  in  most 
cases,  we  need  not  doubt,  with  a  real  conviction  that 
Christianity  was  true,  but  with  the  most  imperfect 
sense  of  its  claims  upon  them.  Hence  for  many 
centuries  the  Christian  Church  was  largely  a  baptized 
paganism,  and  although  the  pagan  elements  are  being 
slowly  eliminated  we  are  very  far  as  yet  from  that 
desirable  consummation.  Hence  much  that  is  put 
down  to  the  account  of  the  Gospel  might  be  more 
truly  charged  against  the  paganism  which,  but  for 
the  immortal  principle  that  lived  within  the  Christian 
religion,  would  have  quickly  stifled  it.  And,  lastly, 
we  ought  not  to  forget  that  it  is  the  Gospel  itself 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  225 

which   has  largely  created  the  ethical  standard  by 
which  we  condemn  the  misdoings  of  the  Church. 

It  is  undeniable  that  it  is  the  Christian  spirit  which 
has  worked  for  the  ameUoration  of  human  misery,  has 
abolished  slavery,  softened  the  horrors  of  war,  put  an 
end  to  infanticide,  reformed  our  prisons,  built  hospitals 
and  orphanages.  Its  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Fatherhood  of  God,  with  its  corollary  the  brotherhood 
of  man,  gives  us  at  once  the  impulse  and  the  pro- 
gramme of  social  reform  which  even  yet  has  been  but 
poorly  carried  into  effect.  And  were  the  story  not 
so  famiUar,  I  might  Unger  on  the  redemptive  achieve- 
ments of  Christianity  in  the  case  of  the  individual. 
The  Gospel  is  constantly  working  miracles  of  reforma- 
tion, and  there  must  be  few  of  my  readers  who  are  not 
famihar  with  some  cases  where  men  of  notorious 
character  have  been  radically,  and  often  instantane- 
ously, transformed  by  the  power  of  Christ.  But, 
after  all,  the  arguments  from  miracles,  from  the  pre- 
paration for  the  Gospel,  from  the  marvellous  spread 
of  Christianity,  are  largely  of  the  nature  of  credentials. 
To  say  this  is  not  to  disparage  them  as  worthless,  but 
to  put  them  in  their  proper  place.  The  great  argu- 
ment for  Christianity  is  Christ  Himself. 

Christ  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  supreme  Teacher  of 
religion.  His  central  doctrine  was  that  God  was  the 
universal  Father,  and  therefore  that  all  men  were 
brothers.  He  bade  men  love  God  and  serve  Him  as 
children  should  love  and  serve  their  parents,  and  He 
Q 


226     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

encouraged  them  to  trust  to  the  uttermost  their 
Father's  love  and  care  for  them.  Nay,  He  even  com- 
manded men  to  love  their  enemies  and  do  good  to 
those  that  persecuted  them.  His  blessing  rested  on 
the  pure  in  heart,  the  lowly,  and  the  meek.  He  had 
an  unfaltering  belief  in  the  infinite  worth  of  each  soul 
to  God,  and  in  the  possibilities  that  were  open  to 
every  man,  even  the  worst.  Yet  He  saw  clearly  and 
taught  plainly  that  men  were  sinful,  and  needed  to 
repent  and  turn  to  God.  It  is  sometimes  said.  Every- 
thing that  Jesus  said  had  been  said  before  Him  by 
others.  Let  us  grant  that  it  is  true,  what  then  ? 
Originality  may  or  may  not  be  a  merit.  If  the  truth 
has  already  been  uttered,  the  merit  lies  in  repeating 
it,  and  giving  it  new  and  fuller  apphcation.  But 
there  are  other  considerations  to  be  borne  in  mind. 
We  have  no  other  teacher  who  so  completely  eliminated 
the  trivial,  the  temporal,  the  false  from  his  system,  no 
one  who  selected  just  the  eternal  and  the  universal, 
and  combined  them  in  a  teaching  where  all  these  great 
truths  found  their  congenial  home.  These  parallels 
from  the  teaching  of  others  to  that  of  Christ  are  brought 
together  from  this  quarter  and  from  that ;  how  was  it 
that  none  of  these  teachers  furnishes  us  with  any 
parallel  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  as  a  whole,  while 
each  of  them  gives  us  such  truths  as  He  expresses 
mingled  with  a  mass  of  what  is  trivial  and  absurd  ? 
How  was  it  that  a  carpenter,  of  no  special  training, 
ignorant  of  the  culture  and  learning  of  the  Greeks, 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  227 

bom  of  a  people  whose  great  teachers  were  narrow, 
sour,  mtolerant,  pedantic  legalists,  was  the  supreme 
religious  Teacher  the  world  has  known,  whose  supre- 
macy here  makes  Him  the  most  important  figure  in 
the  world's  history  ? 

But  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  speak  of  Him  as  if  He 
were  merely  a  teacher.  For  Christianity  is  not  a  mere 
moral  philosophy,  it  is  a  moral  and  redeeming  force. 
We  needed  more  than  a  teacher,  we  wanted  a  Saviour. 
To  have  set  before  us  the  loftiest  ideal  would  only 
have  brought  home  to  us  more  keenly  our  utter  in- 
abihty.  But  Christ  is  not  only  a  teacher,  He  is  a 
Redeemer.  As  such  He  has  from  the  first  been  pro- 
claimed by  His  followers. 

And  this  brings  me  to  consider  the  impression  made 
by  Jesus  on  the  early  Christians.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  was  soon  formulated.  We  learn 
from  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan,  written  early  in  the 
second  century,  that  the  Christians  sang  hymns  to 
Christ  as  to  a  god,  and  the  contemporary  Christian 
writers  contain  much  evidence  to  the  same  effect ; 
while  it  is  undeniable  that  they  considered  themselves 
to  maintain  a  belief  in  the  unity  of  God.  Naturally 
it  was  not  easy  to  hold  together  with  perfect  balance 
and  clearness  the  unity  of  God  and  the  Divinity  of 
Christ.  Hence  some  of  the  early  Fathers  used  lan- 
guage that  to  a  later  generation  would  have  seemed 
dubious.  But  the  New  Testament  presents  us  with  a 
very  lofty  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person. 


228     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

I  begin  with  the  case  of  Paul.  Take  it  how  we  will, 
the  Conversion  of  Paul  is  in  itself  a  striking  testimony 
to  the  greatness  of  Jesus.  Whatever  attitude  we  may 
adopt  to  Paul's  theology,  no  sound  student  of  history 
can  deny  that  he  was  one  of  the  world's  greatest  men. 
He  had  everything  to  predispose  him  against  Chris- 
tianity. Assume  the  Christian  doctrine  to  be  true, 
and  his  conversion  falls  naturally  into  its  place.  But 
assume  it  to  be  untrue,  and  what  must  the  force  of 
that  PersonaUty  have  been  which  captured  a  man  of 
Paul's  magnitude  and  carried  him  His  willing  captive 
in  His  train  ?  How,  then,  did  Paul  define  the  nature 
of  Jesus  ?  It  is  uncertain  whether  He  actually  applied 
the  term  "  God  "  to  Him,  though  in  my  judgment 
that  is  the  truest  interpretation  of  Romans  ix.  5. 
But  what  he  said  of  Him  elsewhere  can  scarcely  be 
satisfied  by  any  doctrine  short  of  His  Divinity.  He 
affirms  His  pre-existence,  and  assigns  to  Him  the  whole 
work  of  Creation,  even  of  the  loftiest  angelic  powers. 
He  claims  for  Him  that  He  existed  originally  in  the 
form  of  God  and  was  the  image  of  the  invisible  God. 
He  is  the  centre  of  cohesion  which  keeps  the  whole 
universe  together.  And  some  of  Paul's  indirect  lan- 
guage is  even  more  striking  than  the  direct  claim. 
We  cannot  accept  the  Authorised  Version  translation 
of  Philippians  ii.  6,  "  Thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God,"  and  the  exact  sense  of  the  passage 
is  not  easy  to  determine.  Not  improbably  the  mean- 
ing is  that  He  counted  not  equality  with  God  a  thing 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  229 

to  be  clutched  at.  But  of  what  creature  could  such  a 
renunciation  be  adduced  as  an  instance  of  humility 
for  which  Paul  here  quotes  it  ?  HumiUty  is  seen  in 
waiving  a  claim  which  we  have  a  right  to  make.  It 
is  no  token  of  lowHness  to  refrain  from  aspiring  to  that 
which  we  have  no  title  to  possess.  The  passage  is 
thus  seen  to  be  an  even  more  striking  expression  of 
Paul's  belief  in  Christ's  essential  Divinity  than  if  the 
apostle  had  put  the  claim  in  the  direct  form  given  in 
the  Authorised  Version.  I  have  by  no  means  ex- 
hausted the  evidence  that  Paul  regarded  Jesus  as 
Divine,  but  this  may  perhaps  suffice  for  my  present 
purpose. 

Substantially  the  same  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Both  assert  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus,  both  assert 
that  He  existed  before  the  worlds  and  was  the  agent 
in  their  creation.  The  former  describes  Him  as  the 
radiance  of  the  Divine  glory  and  the  impress  of  God's 
essence,  the  clear-cut  facsimile  of  His  essential  Being. 
The  latter  describes  Him  as  the  Logos  who  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God  and  was  Himself  Divine.  Some 
of  the  other  New  Testament  writings  are  less  explicit, 
but  if  we  carefully  think  out  what  is  involved  in  their 
utterances  about  Jesus  we  shall  see  that  they  cannot 
be  satisfied  by  anything  but  a  high  doctrine  of  His 
Person.  It  may  be  urged,  however,  that  the  doctrine 
was  created  by  Paul,  and  that  we  can  therefore  attach 
no   independent  importance  to   its  presence  in   the 


230     Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

other  New  Testament  writings,  since  their  authors 
derived  it  from  Paul.  Now,  I  willingly  admit  that 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Fourth  Gospel 
exhibit  Paul's  influence,  and  that  therefore,  so  far  as 
they  are  concerned,  a  plausible  case  might  be  made 
out  for  attributing  the  doctrine  to  this  source.  But 
it  is  proper  to  point  out  at  this  stage  that  other  in- 
fluences are  traceable  in  these  writings.  The  Jewish 
Platonism  of  Alexandria  has  exercised  a  profound 
influence  on  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  has  possibly  affected  the  theology  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  I  grant  also  that  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter 
presents  us  with  a  substantially  Pauline  type  of 
theology. 

But  there  are  very  important  considerations  to  be 
urged  against  the  view  that  the  doctrine  originated 
with  Paul.  We  have,  first  of  all,  a  lofty  doctrine  of 
Christ's  Person  quite  independently  of  Paul.  It  is 
generally  recognised  that  we  have  a  very  primitive 
Christology  in  the  speeches  of  Peter  in  the  Acts.  It 
is  quite  true  that  we  have  not  here  the  fully  developed 
doctrine  which  is  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  but 
even  here  Jesus  is  regarded  as  a  worker  of  miracles, 
as  having  been  raised  from  the  dead  and  exalted  to 
the  right  hand  of  God.  He  is  identified  both  with  the 
Messianic  King  and  with  the  Suffering  Servant  of 
Yahweh  of  whom  we  read  in  the  Second  Isaiah.  He 
is  described  as  the  Holy  and  Righteous  One,  and  the 
Prince  of  Life,  in  His  name  miracles  are  wrought  and 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  231 

salvation  is  exclusively  given,  and  through  Him 
comes  remission  of  sins.  He  is  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour, 
and  is  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and 
dead.  It  is  He  who  pours  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  His  followers.  Here,  therefore,  is  no  trace 
of  the  Pauline  teaching,  yet  when  we  put  all  these 
things  together  and  estimate  their  total  impression 
we  can  see  that  it  was  in  order  to  do  justice  to  what 
they  implied  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity  was 
formulated.  The  Book  of  the  Revelation  represents 
a  different  tendency  from  the  Pauline.  Yet  its  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  Person  is  as  exalted  as  Paul's.  He  is 
the  First  and  the  Last  and  the  Living  One.  He  is 
the  Lamb  who  is  associated  with  Him  that  sits  upon 
the  throne.  He  is  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords 
and  the  recipient  of  Divine  honour.  The  significance 
of  this  lofty  doctrine  is  all  the  more  striking  when  we 
consider  how  intensely  Jewish  the  Apocalypse  is. 
And  if  it  is  really  the  work  of  John  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
as  several  scholars  still  beheve,  we  can  hardly  over- 
rate the  importance  of  the  fact  that  one  who  had  been 
an  intimate  friend  of  the  historical  Jesus  should  hold 
so  lofty  a  doctrine  of  His  Person. 

In  the  next  place,  the  absence  of  the  term  "  Son 
of  Man  "  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  a  striking  proof 
that  they  are  not  the  primary  sources  of  this  doctrine. 
I  do  not  enter  here  into  the  tangled  problems  touch- 
ing this  title  which  have  called  forth  so  many  discus- 
sions during  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years.     We  can 


232     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

reasonably  account  for  the  prevalence  of  the  title  in 
the  Gospels  and  its  all  but  complete  absence  from  the 
rest  of  the  New  Testament  only  by  the  view  that  it 
was  a  title  actually  applied  by  Jesus  to  Himself. 
Whatever  be  the  precise  sense  in  which  Jesus  em- 
ployed it,  it  assigns  a  unique  dignity  and  meaning  to 
His  Person,  and,  as  we  shall  see  later,  it  is  in  the 
direction  of  Christ's  teaching  rather  than  of  Paul's 
that  we  must  look  for  the  origin  of  the  doctrine. 

Once  more,  we  have  no  trace  of  any  opposition  in 
the  early  Church  to  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence 
or  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  We  are  all  familiar  with 
the  conflict  created  in  the  Church  by  Paul's  doctrine 
of  the  abolition  of  the  Law.  Now,  fundamentally, 
Paul's  doctrine  that  the  Law  was  abohshed  rested  on 
the  estimate  which  he  had  formed  of  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  that  rested  in  turn  on  the  doctrine  of  His 
Person.  For  him  it  was  impossible  to  give  the  work 
of  the  Son  of  God  a  place  secondary  to  the  Law.  But, 
though  logically  the  high  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person 
and  the  high  doctrine  of  His  work  go  together,  the 
Jewish  antagonists  of  Paul,  while  attacking  one,  did 
not  challenge  the  other.  Even  if  we  consider  that  they 
may  not  have  been  alive  to  the  logical  inconsistency 
of  their  position,  which  is,  of  course,  quite  probable, 
it  is  clear  that  they  did  not  realise  any  discord  between 
Paul's  view  of  Christ's  Person  and  their  own.  The 
importance  of  this  fact  is  that  as  rigorous  Jews  they 
would  be  naturally  suspicious  of  any  novel  doctrine 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  233 

which  seemed  to  impair  the  unity  of  God,  and  thus 
contradict  the  monotheism  which  was  their  deepest 
conviction.  If,  then,  they  did  not  attack  Paul's 
doctrine  here,  it  must  have  been  because  they  were 
aware  that  this  was  no  novelty,  but  a  doctrine  war- 
ranted by  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself. 

And,  lastly,  what  should  have  led  Paul  to  create  the 
doctrine  if  it  was  a  mere  private  speculation  of  his 
own  ?  We  must,  in  the  first  place,  remember  that 
Paul  came  to  the  subject  as  a  trained  Jewish  theo- 
logian, and  therefcwe  as  one  whose  fundamental  doc- 
trine was  that  of  the  unity  of  God.  He  shrank  with 
horror  from  anything  like  polytheism.  His  instinct, 
therefore,  would  be  to  do  nothing  which  might  seem 
to  imperil  the  behef  in  the  Divine  unity.  In  the  next 
place,  tliis  was  all  the  more  important  in  view  of  the 
sphere  of  his  labours.  He  was  working  in  the  Graeco- 
Roman  world,  and  its  polytheism  would  have  served 
as  a  constant  warning  to  him  of  the  danger  that  he 
might  turn  the  Gospel  into  a  new  heathenism  by  set- 
ting Christ  as  a  Divine  figure  by  the  side  of  God. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  clear  that  he  might  not  have  con- 
structed his  theology  in  such  a  way  as  to  satisfy  its 
necessities  by  some  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person  short 
of  His  Divinity.  For  aU  of  these  reasons  we  may 
believe,  on  purely  historical  grounds,  that  Paul  did 
not  create  this  conception  of  Christ's  Person,  but  re- 
ceived it  from  another  source.  Even  at  the  point 
which  we  have  reached  it  would  be  most  natural  to 


234     Christianity     its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

think  of  it  as  derived  from  the  teaching  of  Christ 
Himself.  But  in  order  not  to  leave  the  matter  one 
simply  of  inference,  it  will  be  my  next  duty  to  show 
that  the  doctrine  was  based  on  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Himself. 

Accordingly  I  pass  on  to  consider  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  to  His  own  Divinity.  That  He  laid  claim  to  sin- 
lessness  we  have  already  seen.  That  He  believed 
Himself  to  be  Divine  I  must  now  seek  to  show.  That 
behef  is  attested  by  both  direct  and  indirect  evidence  ; 
there  are  utterances  which  assert  it,  there  are  utter- 
ances which  imply  it.  If  I  could  assume  the  authen- 
ticity of  Christ's  sayings  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the 
claim  would  be  made  out,  but  in  view  of  the  wide- 
spread distrust  of  that  Gospel  I  think  that  it  will  be 
wiser  to  rest  my  case  on  the  presentation  in  the 
Synoptists.  It  is  a  singular  proof  of  the  veracity  of 
these  Gospels  that,  while  they  are  later  in  time  than 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  they  do  not  use  the  Pauline  terms 
in  their  report  of  the  references  of  Jesus  to  Himself, 
they  are  untouched  for  the  most  part  by  the  later 
Christological  development.  And  yet  how  stupendous 
are  the  claims  which  He  makes  for  Himself  in  these 
Gospels. 

I  begin  with  a  passage  which  cannot  have  been  in- 
vented, since  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would  not  have 
put  into  His  mouth  a  confession  of  His  ignorance.  In 
Mark  xiii.  32  we  read,  "  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour 
knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  235 

the  Son,  but  the  Father."  The  terms  move  upward 
n  an  ascending  climax,  and  the  Son,  even  in  His 
humiliation,  receives  His  place  above  the  angels,  while 
the  use  of  the  term  itself  imphes  a  unique  filial  rela- 
tion to  God.  We  are  not,  then,  surprised  that  He 
claims  to  be  greater  than  Solomon  and  the  temple, 
that  if  He  is  David's  Son  He  is  also  David's  Lord. 
The  earlier  messengers  of  God  to  Israel  are  the  slaves 
of  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  but  He  is  the  Son.  He 
exercises  the  Divine  prerogative  to  forgive  sins.  He 
claims  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  world,  and  at  the  judg- 
ment He  will  send  forth  His  angels  to  do  His  bidding. 
To  Him  all  things  have  been  delivered  by  the  Father, 
and  He  asserts  for  Himself  that  He  alone  knows  the 
Father  and  alone  is  able  to  reveal  Him  to  others. 
He  demands  the  utmost  sacrifice,  that  men  should 
subordinate  to  His  claims  the  dearest  ties  of  kinship 
and  lose  their  lives  for  His  sake.  His  blood  institutes 
the  New  Covenant  between  God  and  man,  He  gives 
His  life  a  ransom  for  many. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  asked  why  Jesus  practised  so 
much  reticence  in  making  His  claims.  The  reason  lay 
in  the  historical  conditions.  In  the  first  place.  He 
did  not  wish  to  give  His  disciples  the  doctrine  on  His 
mere  authority.  It  was  far  better  that  they  them- 
selves should  reach  the  conviction  from  an  unbiased 
consideration  of  the  facts  than  that  by  a  premature 
disclosure  He  should  lead  them  to  accept  it  on  ex- 
ternal authority.    It  was  only  after  He  had  been  with 


236     Christianity:   its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

them  and  they  had  seen  Him,  not  sunply  as  the  crowd 
saw  Him,  but  in  the  famiUar  intercourse  of  the  home, 
that  He  could  propound  the  question  as  to  the  im- 
pression His  Personahty  had  made.  And  while  the 
multitudes  were  convinced  that  there  was  something 
extraordinary  in  His  Person,  those  who  knew  Him 
best  had  attained  a  higher  conviction  of  its  nature. 
But  it  was  not  necessary  for  Jesus  simply  to  lead  them 
to  an  unforced  belief  in  His  Divinity,  but  the  Messianic 
ideas  of  His  followers  were  at  first  so  crude  and  un- 
spiritual  that  the  utmost  caution  was  needed  if  He 
was  not  to  set  their  thought  on  false  hnes. 

It  is  not  only  the  expUcit  assertion  which  has  to  be 
taken  into  account,  we  must  consider  also  what  is 
implied.  His  fundamental  doctrine  was  the  Father- 
hood of  God,  and  He  Himself  was  truly  man.  Yet,  in 
spite  of  His  sense  of  kinship  with  His  fellows,  He  does 
not  speak  of  "  our  Father  "  as  if  the  relation  in  which 
He  stood  to  God  was  as  their  own  ;  He  speaks  of  My 
Father  and  your  Father,  and  if  He  uses  the  term  "  Our 
Father,"  it  is  when  He  is  giving  to  His  disciples  a 
model  form  of  prayer  that  they  may  use.  He  super- 
sedes with  His  simple  "  I  say  unto  you  "  even  the 
Law.  He  needs  no  authority  higher  than  His  own. 
He  is  master  of  every  situation,  free  from  all  embar- 
rassment ;  there  is  a  sense  of  distance  and  distinction 
from  us,  a  self-assertion  of  the  loftiest  type.  There  is 
about  Him  a  universality,  a  freedom  from  the  hmits 
of  race  and  sex  and  time  which  take  Him  out  of  the 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  237 

class  of  our  ordinary  humanity.  What  lies  behind 
His  occasional  teaching  is  the  serene  and  large  know- 
ledge of  spiritual  things,  His  lucid  vision  of  God,  His 
firm  and  easy  command  of  the  whole  range  of  Divine 
truth.  And  what  is  very  remarkable  is  His  untroubled 
confidence  in  the  future,  His  complete  freedom  from 
anxiety  as  to  the  progress  of  His  Gospel.  Consider 
only  the  fact  that  He  wrote  nothing.  He  anticipated 
a  speedy  end  to  His  career.  He  knew  the  frailty  of 
His  followers,  and  yet  He  did  not  take  what  would 
seem  to  be  the  most  ordinary  precautions  to  secure 
that  His  teaching  should  be  preserved.  He  uttered 
His  matchless  sayings  in  rich  profusion,  but  He  gave 
Himself  no  concern  that  they  should  be  written  down 
and  thus  saved  from  the  failure  of  memory  or  other 
accidents  which  time  and  chance  might  bring.  Partly 
this  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Christianity  was  not  to 
be  a  new  law,  but  a  new  spirit ;  but  it  also  testifies 
to  the  Divine  confidence  He  had  in  the  impression 
made  by  His  Person,  which  He  rated  even  more  highly 
than  His  teaching.  And  yet  even  of  this  word,  second- 
ary though  it  was  to  His  Person,  He  could  say  with 
calm  conviction,  "Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 
but  My  word  shall  not  pass  away."  Were  we  to  be 
told  of  some  historical  person  that  he  made  claims 
for  himself,  direct  or  indirect,  such  as  those  made  by 
Jesus,  we  should  feel  that  we  were  probably  dealing 
either  with  a  conscious  impostor  or  with  a  victim  of 
megalomania.     But  no  sound  historical  student  would 


238     Christianity  •  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

assert  this  of  Jesus.  His  absolute  sincerity  rings 
through  all  He  said  and  did.  It  was  finally  proved 
by  the  fate  which  He  would  not  escape  by  retracting 
a  claim  that  His  judges  regarded  as  blasphemy.  And 
what  but  utter  incompetence  could  utter  the  charge  of 
insanity  against  One  who  impresses  readers  of  the  Gos- 
pels by  the  breadth  and  the  balance  of  His  views  ?  He 
was  no  deluded  enthusiast,  for  such  a  man  could  never 
have  been  the  great  Teacher  who  founded  the  highest 
and  purest  religion  the  world  has  known.  Could  the 
best  of  mankind  have  yielded  their  glad  allegiance 
to  an  amiable  but  deluded  fanatic  ?  Jesus,  indeed, 
combined  qualities  which  at  first  seem  to  be  irreconcil- 
able, a  stupendous  self-assertion  and  affirmation  of 
regal  authority  with  a  meekness  and  humility  and  an 
utter  freedom  from  arrogance.  It  is  in  the  same 
breath  that  He  claims  a  unique  relation  to  God  and 
says  that  He  is  meek  and  lowly  in  heart.  If,  then, 
I  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  it  is 
primarily  because  I  believe  that  He  Himself  claimed 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  His  self-testimony  is  worthy 
of  all  acceptance. 

And  now  I  return  to  develop  an  argument  I  have 
already  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  that  I  may  point 
out  how  the  claim  of  Jesus  is  corroborated  by  another 
set  of  considerations.  No  one  could  consider  the 
history  of  Christianity  without  being  impressed  by 
the  amazing  slendemess  of  the  apparatus  compared 
with  the  stupendous  character  of  the  result.    Nothing 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  239 

could  be  more  fantastic  than  the  story  of  Jesus  and 
His  achievement  viewed  as  a  natural  human  develop- 
ment. All  the  conditions  were  against  Him  if  we  have 
regard  to  what  impresses  mankind  and  leads  to  the 
attainment  of  success. 

First  of  all,  there  was  His  country.  It  was  a  tiny 
land,  and,  although  not  so  isolated  as  has  sometimes 
been  represented,  it  was  not  one  that  stood  in  the 
main  stream  of  things.  Had  Jesus  appeared  in  Greece 
or  Italy,  in  Egypt  or  in  India,  one  might  have  esti- 
mated more  highly  His  prospects  of  success.  They  would 
have  had  a  stage  more  fitted  for  genius  than  the 
obscure  and  out-of-the-way  comer  of  the  world  wherein 
He  played  His  part.  Then  His  race  was  even  more 
against  Him.  The  attitude  of  the  Gentile  to  the  Jew 
was  one  of  disgust,  irritation,  and  contempt.  The 
way  in  which  the  Jews  held  themselves  aloof  from 
the  heathen,  the  anxious  care  they  took  to  avoid  con- 
tamination from  them,  created  a  deep  prejudice 
against  them.  Their  rehgious  and  ceremonial  scruples, 
their  refusal  to  touch  the  flesh  of  the  swine,  and  their 
rigid  observance  of  the  Sabbath  made  them  a  butt  of 
constant  ridicule.  And  the  Jew  met  the  contempt  of 
the  heathen  with  a  still  fiercer  scorn.  He  proudly  re- 
membered the  ancient  glories  of  his  race,  he  looked 
with  contempt  on  the  pagan  religions  in  the  conscious- 
ness that  Israel  alone  possessed  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  God,  and  he  bitterly  resented  the  oppression  of 
his  country  by  the  hated  Roman  power.    What  race 


240     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

would  one  have  less  expected  to  give  a  religious  leader 
who  should  win  to  His  faith  the  conquerors  of  His 
people  ?  Again,  there  was  the  disadvantage  of  social 
position.  Buddha  was  nobly  bom,  but  Jesus  be- 
longed to  the  family  of  a  village  carpenter.  Among 
His  own  people  this  would  tell  less  against  Him,  for 
the  Jews  were  honourably  distinguished  by  the  respect 
they  paid  to  manual  labour,  but  in  the  world  outside 
there  was  a  different  scale  of  values,  and  the  rehgion 
of  the  Carpenter  seemed  a  fit  subject  for  ridicule. 
How  could  God's  Son  have  appeared  in  such  lowly 
guise  ?  If  such  a  thing  as  an  Incarnation  was  possible 
at  all,  at  least  it  must  be  attended  by  fit  conditions  of 
wealth  and  splendour.  For  they  naturally  looked  for 
the  Divine  in  that  which  was  powerful  and  rich  and 
magnificent,  not  in  conditions  of  weakness,  poverty, 
and  humility.  That  the  Son  of  God  should  be  an 
artisan  contradicted  their  prejudices  as  to  the  fitness 
of  things. 

But  if  His  countrymen  were  not  repelled  by  the 
fact  that  He  was  a  mechanic,  there  was  in  their  minds 
a  prejudice  which  was  likely  to  prove  even  more 
fatal.  Jesus  had  received  no  theological  education. 
For  a  rehgious  leader  this  was  in  Judaism  a  very  grave 
defect.  The  very  type  of  its  religion,  resting  as  it  did 
upon  the  Old  Testament  and  especially  upon  the  Law, 
gave  the  expert  a  position  of  great  prestige  and 
authorit}^  The  most  important  class  of  society  was 
not  the  priesthood,  but  the  scribes.    In  the  Law  oi 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  241 

the  Rabbis,  Jesus  had  never  been  trained.  It  is  a 
curious  fact  that  Paul,  who  was  trained  as  a  Rabbi, 
worked  mainly  among  Gentiles,  who  cared  nothing 
about  Rabbinism ;  whereas  Jesus  and  the  original 
apostles,  who  were  untrained  in  Jewish  theology, 
laboured  among  those  who  set  an  inordinate  value 
upon  it.  Yet  the  word  which  Jesus  uttered,  while 
lacking  all  the  authority  of  long-established  and 
learned  tradition,  impressed  the  Jews  with  its  fresh- 
ness, its  beauty,  its  originality,  and,  above  all,  with 
that  note  of  independent  authority  which  carried  it 
straight  home  to  the  hearts  of  His  hearers.  It  was, 
it  is  true,  an  advantage  to  the  Gospel,  when  it  passed 
into  the  Gentile  world,  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was 
so  free  from  pedantry  and  that  it  spoke  the  language 
of  humanity  and  not  the  wearisome  jargon  of  the 
schools.  They  would  have  turned  away  with  im- 
patience from  a  religion  of  hair-splitting  casuistry 
about  the  trivial  questions  which  engaged  the  atten- 
tion of  the  scribes.  But  it  was  weighted  with  other 
disadvantages  in  its  appeal  to  the  Gentile  world. 
Jesus  was  as  little  an  expert  in  Greek  philosophy  as 
He  was  in  Rabbinical  learning.  The  Gospel  did  not 
concern  itself  with  the  questions  that  agitated  the 
philosophical  schools,  it  did  not  speak  their  technical 
dialect.  When  we  think  of  the  great  names  in  the 
splendid  galaxy  of  Greek  philosophers,  of  Socrates 
and  Plato  and  Aristotle,  when  we  remember  their  long 
and  arduous  training,  the  width  of  their  knowledge, 


242     Christianity ,   its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

the  keenness  of  their  insight,  their  famiharity  with 
the  best  that  had  been  thought  and  said  by  their 
predecessors,  the  splendid  genius  which  was  the  per- 
sonal equipment  of  each,  we  realise  how  vast  were 
their  advantages  over  the  uncultured  Carpenter  of 
Nazareth.  And  yet  by  common  consent  His  artless 
and  homely  teaching  strikes  more  truly  to  the  core 
of  things  than  the  deepest  teaching  of  the  greatest 
masters  in  philosophy. 

And  if  the  Gospel  was  thus  hampered  in  its  appeal 
to  the  philosopher,  it  was  similarly  hampered  in  its 
appeal  to  the  average  man.  For  to  him  the  new 
religion  came  stripped  of  the  accessories  with  wliich 
he  was  most  famihar.  The  monotheism  that  com- 
mended it  to  the  Jew  or  the  philosopher  made  it  seem 
CO  d  and  forbidding  to  ordinary  people.  Its  exacting 
standard  of  morality  gave  it  an  irksome  and  forbidding 
appearance.  What  had  they  to  do  with  a  religion 
which  had  no  animal  sacrifice,  no  priesthood,  no 
temples,  and  thus  seemed  devoid  of  the  warmth  and 
famiharity  possessed  by  the  materialised  rehgions 
to  which  the  populace  was  accustomed  ?  They 
could  hardly  reahse  that  Christianity  was  a  rehgion 
at  aU. 

Once  more  we  may  remind  ourselves  of  the  extra- 
ordinary brevity  of  Christ's  public  career.  It  was 
probably  embraced  witliin  a  period  of  less  than  three 
years,  whereas  the  work  of  men  Hke  Buddha  and 
Socrates,  Plato  and  Aristotle,  was  spread  over  a  long 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  243 

period  of  intense  and  fruitful  activity.  And  yet  the 
brief  span  of  public  activity  which  was  all  that  was 
permitted  to  Jesus  effected  a  mightier  revolution  than 
the  lengthiest  careers  of  the  greatest  among  the  sons 
of  men. 

And,  as  if  to  crown  all  the  foolishness  of  the  story, 
there  was  the  supreme  folly  and  scandal  of  the 
Cross.  What  could  be  a  fitter  subject  for  ridicule 
than  the  story  of  a  crucified  Jewish  provincial,  an 
outcast  even  from  His  own  despised  people,  who  was 
proclaimed  by  His  followers  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ? 
And  yet  it  is  mere  matter  of  history  that  this  crazy 
story  has  been  the  most  powerful  engine  of  human 
progress  and  redemption  which  the  world  has  known. 
Here,  indeed,  the  foolishness  of  God  has  been  wiser 
than  man. 

But  now,  with  all  these  numerous  disabilities,  it 
would  not  have  been  wonderful  if  Jesus  had  set  Him- 
self to  overcome  them  by  enHsting  on  His  side  the 
sympathies  of  His  people.  It  is,  however,  remarkable 
that  He  did  not  seek  even  this  advantage.  Probably 
He  could  have  placed  Himself  at  the  head  of  a  great 
Messian  c  movement,  inasmuch  as  the  patriotism  of 
the  Jews  was  always  in  a  very  inflammable  condition. 
But  He  dehberately  set  Himself  against  the  cherished 
prejudices  of  His  countrymen  and  died  a  victim  to  their 
disappointment  in  Him.  He  did  not  court  the  favour 
o  the  rehgious  leaders  of  His  time  or  seek  to  win 
them  to  His  side.  He  made  them  rather  the  objects 


244     Christianity:   its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

of  His  most  scathing  invective.  He  shocked  the  pre- 
judices of  the  rehgious  classes  by  consorting  with 
publicans  and  sinners. 

When,  then,  we  inquire  in  virtue  of  what  it  was 
that  with  everything,  as  it  seemed,  against  Him  He 
nevertheless  achieved  so  vast  a  success,  we  can  hardly 
find  any  answer  other  than  this — that  the  secret  of  it 
lay  in  Himself.  And  when  we  ask  for  a  formula  in 
which  our  explanation  may  be  embodied,  we  may  find 
it  in  the  Church's  confession  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
is  the  Son  of  God. 

And,  lastly,  I  would  call  attention  to  the  way  in 
which  the  various  hues  of  evidence  that  we  have 
been  pursuing  converge  on  this  conclusion.  For  it  is 
not  a  chain  of  evidence  which  we  have  been  following 
where  the  weakness  of  a  single  link  may  invalidate 
tlie  whole  reasoning,  but  we  have  been  accumulating 
a  large  number  of  independent  arguments,  each  one  of 
which  points  in  this  direction  and  is  supported  by  all 
the  rest.  We  have  seen  reason  for  our  beUef  that 
Jesus  was  gifted  with  miraculous  power.  We  have 
further  found  good  ground  for  accepting  His  super- 
natural birth  and  His  resurrection.  We  have  observed 
how  the  character  and  teaching  of  Jesus  are  each 
marked  by  internal  consistency  and  are  in  mutual 
harmony  with  one  another.  We  have  seen  that  Jesus 
not  only  proclaimed  the  loftiest  moral  ideal,  but  Him- 
self attained  it.  We  have  discovered,  further,  that 
He  made   on   His  followers  the  impression  that  He 


The  Divinity  of  Christ  245 

was  Divine,  and  that  He  Himself,  both  directly 
and  indirectly,  made  the  same  claim,  and  we 
have  found  a  vindication  of  it  in  the  place  filled 
by  Jesus  in  universal  history  in  spite  of  the  over- 
whelming disadvantages  under  which  He  did  His 
work. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  INCARNATION 

OUR  previous  discussion  has  led  us  to  accept  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  I  may  hnger 
for  a  moment  on  the  importance  of  this  before  I  pass 
on  to  consider  the  problems  which  it  presents  to  us. 
Antecedently  it  would  seem  to  us  so  incredible  that 
we  might  well  be  excused  for  approaching  the  ques- 
tion with  a  large  measure  of  incredulity,  and  it  is  all 
the  more  difficult  for  us,  in  the  vast  extension  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  universe,  to  bring  ourselves  to  believe 
it.  For  we  no  longer  live  in  an  age  when  the  earth  is 
regarded  as  the  centre  of  the  universe,  with  the  sim 
and  moon  as  its  lamps,  with  the  solid  firmament  over- 
head studded  with  twinkling  points  of  light  which  are 
led  out  and  marshalled  in  the  sky.  The  progress  of 
science  has  brought  with  it  an  overpowering  sense  of 
the  physical  insignificance  of  the  world  in  which  we 
Hve,  and  has  vastly  enhanced  our  conception  of  the 
mightiness  of  that  Power  which  called  it  into  being 
and  leads  it  on  its  ordered  way.  That  on  our  speck 
of  stellar  dust  the  Son  of  God  should  have  become 
incarnate,  and  should  have  lived  and  died,  taxes  our 
faith  too  much  to  be  readily  accepted.    Yet  prejudice 

a46 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation         247 

must  yield  to  evidence,  and  the  cogency  of  the  evi- 
dence we  have  already  seen.  Moreover,  it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  regard  physical  magnitude  as  a  criterion 
of  spiritual  worth.  The  single  individual  is  worth 
more  than  the  largest  aggregates  of  unconscious  matter. 
The  greatest  fact,  then,  in  the  history  of  our  world  is 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  one  of  ourselves,  and 
lived  and  died  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  Thus  He 
translated  into  our  human  speech  the  language  of  the 
Eternal.  He  revealed  in  our  human  conditions  the 
inmost  character  of  God.  And  He  did  more  than  this, 
for  He  assured  us,  by  the  surrender  of  Himself  to 
humiliation  and  death,  that  God  did  not  regard  His 
world  with  callous  indifference,  but  with  deep  com- 
passion and  love.  The  message  of  the  Incarnation  is 
that  God  loves  \is  better  than  He  loves  Himself. 

But,  while  we  may  affirm  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation, 
we  are  confronted  by  perhaps  insoluble  difficulties 
as  we  try  to  apprehend  the  conditions  that  it  had 
to  satisfy  and  the  mode  in  which  it  was  achieved. 
We  are,  it  may  be,  in  a  better  position  than  at  one 
time  to  understand  the  conditions  of  the  problem,  and 
this  has  deepened  our  sense  of  its  difficulty.  The 
essential  conditions  of  a  true  solution  are  a  full  recog- 
nition of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  coupled  with  as  full  a 
recognition  of  His  humanity,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
an  insistence  on  the  unity  of  this  Divine-human 
Person,  with  a  frank  acceptance  of  all  that  may  be 
involved  in  the  adjustment  of  the  two  factors.    Now, 


248     Christianity :   its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  such  a  union  must 
be  full  of  mystery  to  us,  for  we  know  only  imperfectly 
what  human  nature  is.  We  have,  it  is  true,  an  im- 
mediate experience  of  it,  but  it  is  of  a  character  to 
make  the  comprehension  of  it  very  difficult.  The 
very  attempt  to  study  it  invests  it  with  artificiality. 
The  natural  is  free  from  self-consciousness,  and  we  can 
no  more  bend  our  minds  to  introspection  without 
destroying  the  natural  character  of  the  consciousness 
we  seek  to  study  than  we  can  look  natural  in  obedience 
to  the  photographer.  Moreover,  recent  investigation 
has  made  clear  how  elementary  our  knowledge  of  per- 
sonality is.  Here  I  return  to  considerations  previously 
mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  problem  of  the  Divine 
PersonaUty.  The  whole  series  of  investigations  which 
have  revealed  to  us  the  existence  of  the  subconscious 
self  has  shown  us  how  vast  may  be  the  realm  of  our 
personality  that  lies  for  our  consciousness  in  deep 
shadow,  its  very  existence  but  dimly  guessed.  All 
the  acts  we  have  ever  done,  the  words  we  have  spoken, 
the  emotions  we  have  experienced,  the  thoughts  which 
have  flitted  in  and  out  again,  are  registered  there, 
though  most  of  them  have  long  since  passed  out  of 
our  conscious  life.  Yet,  buried  deep  as  they  are  below 
the  surface  with  years  of  neglect  and  forgetfulness, 
the  merest  chance  may  call  them  back  from  the  dead 
and  present  them  vividly  to  our  recognition.  But 
this  by  no  means  exhausts  the  great  treasury  which 
we  possess  in  that  personaUty  of  ours  which  lies  be- 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation         249 

neath  the  threshold.  Much  is  stored  there  which  has 
never  been  the  object  of  our  full  attention  at  all.  In 
every  moment  of  our  wakeful  life  there  is  an  unending 
stream  of  impressions  pouring  in  through  every  gate- 
way of  the  senses  and  leaving  their  mark  on  the 
sensitive  receivers.  To  most  of  these  we  pay  no  atten- 
tion ;  we  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  aware  of  them. 
I  say  all  this  simply  to  indicate  how  little  we  know 
of  human  personahty. 

But  if  we  know  little  of  what  personality  involves 
in  ourselves,  though  we  really  possess  it,  how  much 
less  do  we  know  of  personahty  in  God !  If,  then,  we 
understand  so  little  of  the  two  factors  themselves,  how 
Httle  we  can  penetrate  the  mystery  of  a  personahty  in 
which  the  two  factors  are  combined !  The  entrance 
of  the  Son  of  God  into  the  conditions  of  human  hfe 
is  hedged  about  with  mystery,  and  the  record  of  His 
earthly  life  presents  almost  insoluble  difficulties.  Yet 
we  may  see,  to  some  extent,  what  conditions  the 
problem  involves  and  suggest  hues  along  which  we 
may  move  towards  a  solution.  It  would  be  a  strange 
presumption  that  should  impel  us  to  force  our  way 
into  the  Holy  of  Hohes  of  that  Temple  which  was 
sanctified  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Son  of  God.  We 
may  put  our  shoes  off  our  feet  as  we  approach  the 
outer  courts  of  the  sanctuary.  Yet  we  must  not 
tremble  timidly  for  the  Ark  of  God  or  lay  profane 
hands  on  it,  lest  harm  may  befall  it. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  assert  with  the  utmost 


250     Christianity :   its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

firmness  the  reality  of  Christ's  humanity  and  His 
participation  in  a  real  human  experience.  Dogmatic 
theologians  have  frequently  been  unfaithful  to  this 
portion  of  their  trust.  They  have,  it  is  true,  formally 
denounced  as  heresy  any  suppression  of  the  human 
factor,  but  they  have  constantly  made  assertions  about 
Jesus  which  were  not  really  compatible  with  a  hearty 
recognition  of  His  human  limitations.  Against  such 
denials  we  must  set  the  positive  affirmations  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  language  of  which  is  singularly 
clear  and  strong  on  this  subject.  Especially  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  is  valuable  here  in  its  emphatic  de- 
claration that  the  Son  of  God  was  made  like  His 
brethren  in  all  points  except  sin.  The  point  on  which 
the  controversy  has  in  modem  times  converged  has 
been  the  question  of  Christ's  knowledge  during  His 
humiliation.  In  Great  Britain  the  question  has  gained 
a  practical  interest  on  account  of  the  progress  of 
Bib  ical  criticism.  For  my  own  part,  I  do  not  believe 
that  in  anything  which  Jesus  said  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment He  meant  to  be  understood  as  pronouncing  on 
the  authorship  of  any  portion  of  it.  He  used  the  lan- 
guage of  His  day,  just  as  a  speaker  who  might  believe 
that  the  Homeric  poems  were  not  the  work  of  one 
man  might,  nevertheless,  speak  of  Homer,  when  re- 
ferring to  them,  to  illustrate  what  he  might  be  saying. 
I  consider  it,  personally,  very  dangerous  for  good 
people  to  invoke  the  authority  of  Christ  to  discredit 
critical  results,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  that  Dr.  Orr,  who 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation         251 

is  at  once  an  eminent  theologian  and  one  of  the  ablest 
opponents  of  the  dominant  school  of  Old  Testament 
criticism,  considers  that  the  references  of  Christ  are 
not  to  be  quoted  as  authoritatively  settling  these 
questions. 

It  was  not,  however.  Biblical  criticism  which  forced 
this  problem  in  its  modem  form  to  the  front.  Luther's 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  gave  rise  to  his  behef 
in  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body  through  the  com- 
munication to  the  human  nature  of  the  properties 
which  belonged  to  the  Divine.  This  doctrine  has 
always  imposed  a  great  problem  on  the  Lutheran 
Church  and  intensified  its  interest  in  Christology.  To 
it  we  owe  the  various  types  of  what  are  known  as 
Kenotic  theories.  Even  though  none  of  them  could 
be  regarded  as  successful,  yet  they  have  done  great 
service,  not  the  least  being  that  they  have  forced  on 
our  notice  the  existence  of  the  problem  and  taught  us 
to  realise  its  great  complexity.  The  term  "  Kenosis  " 
is  borrowed  from  the  Greek  word  "  to  empty,"  which 
is  used  by  Paul  in  his  great  passage  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  where  he  says  of  Christ  that  He 
emptied  Himself.  It  is,  of  course,  extremely  question- 
able whether  anything  in  the  nature  of  the  modem 
Kenotic  theories  was  before  Paul's  mind  when  he  used 
the  term,  but  this  need  not  prevent  our  employment 
of  it  as  a  convenient  label.  There  have  been  several 
forms  of  this  theory  which  would  involve  too  much 
technical   treatment   to   describe   here.     Those   who 


252     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

desire  a  good  statement  with  careful  criticism  will 
find  it  in  Bruce's  great  work,  The  Humiliation  of 
Christ, 

Om"  surest  source  of  information  on  this  subject  is 
the  Gospel  narrative.  This  sets  before  us  the  life  of 
Jesus  as  it  was  actually  lived,  and  to  this  presentation 
all  theological  preconceptions  must  give  way.  It  has 
been  the  bane  of  theological  speculation  in  the  past, 
that  it  has  started  too  often  from  a  speculative  idea 
as  to  what  is  involved  in  the  union  of  man  with  God. 
It  is  the  note  of  our  modem  study  that  it  rests  on 
facts  and  does  not  permit  itself  to  be  swayed  by  pre- 
judice or  prepossession.  Now  the  Gospel  narrative 
exhibits  Jesus  as  human  through  and  through.  He 
is  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  that  not 
only  in  the  physical  conditions,  but  the  mental  and 
the  spiritual.  He  confesses  His  ignorance  in  a  matter 
of  high  theological  importance.  He  asks  for  informa- 
tion in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  that  He  did  not  possess 
it.  We  must  avoid  the  profanity  of  suggesting  that 
He  deliberately  gave  a  false  impression,  nor  may  we 
seek  to  save  His  omniscience  at  the  expense  of  His 
absolute  truthfulness.  It  would  be  a  deep  disloyalty 
to  accuse  Him  of  unreaUty.  We  are,  in  fact,  shut  up 
to  one  of  two  conclusions — either  Christ  did  not  know 
certain  things,  or  He  pretended  not  to  know.  Now, 
there  has  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
when  men  have  been  so  keenly  alive  to  theological 
that  they  were  dull  to  moral  considerations,  and  actu- 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation         253 

ally  uttered  such  statements  as  that  Christ  usefully 
pretended  not  to  know.  Happily  such  a  saying  would 
now  be  felt  to  be  an  outrage  on  the  veracity  of  our 
Lord,  even  by  those  who  do  not  realise  that  the  only 
alternative  to  it  is  to  accept  quite  frankly  the  Umita- 
tions  of  His  knowledge.  The  supernatural  knowledge 
which  Jesus  displays  forms  part  of  the  miraculous 
element  which  marked  His  career,  and  was  not  a  per- 
sonal equipment  for  His  own  use,  but,  so  to  speak, 
an  official  endowment  for  the  ends  of  His  mission.  It 
belongs  to  the  same  type  as  the  supernatural  know- 
ledge which  we  find  possessed  by  the  prophets,  though 
naturally  surpassing  it. 

We  may  see  with  especial  clearness  what  is  involved 
in  this  respect  if  we  consider  the  significance  of  the 
fact  that  He  was  tempted  in  all  points  Hke  as  we  are. 
This  in  itself  involves  a  limitation  in  His  knowledge. 
This  can  be  best  seen  from  a  temptation  which  is 
among  the  most  urgent  we  have  to  meet.  It  is  one 
which  presses  with  most  severity  upon  those  who  are 
most  deeply  filled  with  the  love  of  their  fellows.  It  is 
also  one  of  the  most  critical  and  dangerous,  since  it 
strikes  at  the  very  vitals  of  religion.  It  must,  there- 
fore, have  been  experienced  by  Christ,  otherwise  He 
would  have  been  untested  in  one  of  the  conflicts  where 
the  trial  is  most  severe.  And  in  virtue  of  the  bound- 
less love  that  possessed  Him,  the  depth  of  His  pity, 
the  richness  of  His  sympathy,  the  keenness  of  His 
imagination,  it  must  have  pressed  upon  Him  with  a 


254     Christianity :   its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

peculiar  intensity.  The  temptation  to  which  I  refer 
springs  out  of  the  undeserved  suffering,  the  brutal 
oppression  and  injustice,  which  confront  us  on  every 
hand.  The  question  that  springs  to  our  Hps  as  the 
spectacle  forces  itself  upon  us  in  all  its  accumulated 
horror  is  whether  a  world  such  as  this  can  be  governed 
by  a  holy  and  a  loving  God.  Such  a  temptation  ap- 
peals but  little  to  those  of  coarse  and  dull  sensibiUties, 
to  the  apathetic  and  unimaginative.  It  does  not  rack 
the  self-centred,  who  trouble  but  little  for  the  welfare 
of  others  provided  their  own  comfort  is  undisturbed. 
But  to  a  spirit  so  constituted  as  that  of  Jesus  we  can 
only  faintly  conceive  with  what  appalling  force  such 
a  temptation  would  come.  And  now,  how  does  the 
Christian  hold  fast  his  faith  in  God  when  he  is  assailed 
by  this  temptation  ?  He  may,  of  course,  on  this  line 
or  that,  mitigate  the  pressure  of  the  difficulty  by 
pointing  to  various  considerations  which  tend  to  re- 
Ueve  it.  But  when  all  has  been  said  of  which  the  case 
admits,  he  has  still  to  leave  a  realm  of  mystery.  In 
the  face  of  so  much  that  shows  us  unspeakable  wretch- 
edness in  the  world  he  meets  its  suggestion  of  imbelief 
with  the  answer  that  it  is  only  our  ignorance  which 
prevents  us  from  seeing  God's  love  even  in  spite  of 
this.  If  we  knew  as  God  knows,  we  too  should  know 
that  the  world's  evil  does  not  contradict  the  love  of 
God.  But  this  means  that  the  temptation  would  have 
no  significance  for  us  were  it  not  for  our  ignorance. 
Inasmuch,  then,  as  Christ  must  have  been  tempted  in 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation        255 

this  vital  point  as  we  are,  He  must  have  shared  the 
ignorance  which  alone  made  such  a  temptation 
possible. 

But  not  only  does  the  New  Testament  clearly  reveal 
to  us  a  Jesus  who  grew  in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  and 
one  who  was  limited  as  we  are  on  the  intellectual  side, 
it  also  depicts  Him  as  standing  with  us  in  His  relation- 
ship to  God.  He  used  the  ordinary  means  of  grace, 
nurtured  His  spiritual  life  on  Scripture  and  fellowship 
with  God,  and  met  the  assaults  of  the  tempter  with 
the  sword  of  the  Spirit.  The  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  insists  that,  like  His  brethren,  He 
praised  God  in  the  congregation  and  reposed  in  Him 
His  human  trust.  But  now  the  question  may  be 
asked  :  Does  not  this  detract  from  the  real  greatness 
of  Christ  ?  It  is  surely  obvious,  on  the  contrary,  that 
it  enhances  it.  We  do  not  consider,  when  one  makes 
a  great  surrender  of  social  position  and  wealth,  or  of 
the  possibiUties  of  knowledge  which  open  up  before 
him,  in  order  that  he  may  give  his  Hfe  to  the  debased, 
that  he  is  the  less  to  be  honoured  for  doing  so.  When 
one  who  might  have  been  a  great  scholar,  and  whose 
instincts  draw  him  powerfully  towards  such  a  career, 
turns  resolutely  away  from  these  tempting  paths  that 
he  may  become  a  missionary  to  the  heathen  or  the 
outcast,  the  ignorance  of  much  which  he  might  other- 
wise have  known  is  no  reproach  but  a  title  to  our 
regard.  And  so  the  Son  of  God  seems  the  more 
glorious  for  His  ignorance,  since  it  proves  that  He  set 


256     Christianity :   its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

the  salvation  of  men  before  the  jealous  guarding  of  His 
own  prerogatives. 

Yet  the  question  might  still  arise  whether  this  limita- 
tion does  not  impair  His  Divinity.  We  might,  of  course, 
ask  whether  each  of  the  Persons  in  the  Trinity  pos- 
sessed, in  virtue  of  His  intrinsic  being,  each  of  the 
attributes  which  belong  to  God  considered  as  a  unity. 
We  ought,  perhaps,  not  rashly  to  assume  that  omni- 
science is  a  quality  possessed  by  each  of  the  Persons 
of  the  Godhead  in  His  own  right.  Of  course,  in  virtue 
of  the  mutual  indwelling  and  perfect  communion  of 
Hfe  which  exists  in  the  circle  of  the  Godhead  the 
omniscience  of  the  Father  would  be  shared  by  the 
Son  and  Spirit.  But  if  it  was  not  a  quality  which 
belonged  to  His  essential  being,  but  one  which  He 
enjoyed  through  His  communion  with  the  Father's 
life,  it  would  help  us  to  understand  how  He  might 
renounce  the  enjoyment  of  it  without  impairing  the 
intrinsic  quality  of  His  being.  It  may  be  urged  that 
this  is  of  so  speculative  a  character  that  no  importance 
can  be  attached  to  it.  Very  good,  but  it  is  important 
in  this  respect,  that  it  at  least  shows  the  possibility 
of  an  interpretation  other  than  that  which  is  com- 
monly assumed  as  self-evident.  I  am  not  for  one 
moment  suggesting  that  this  has  really  happened  ; 
obviously  in  a  matter  of  this  kind  we  have  no  informa- 
tion to  guide  us. 

The  real  answer,  however,  to  the  objection  is,   I  - 
think,  to  be  sought  in  a  more  correct  definition  of  what 


The  Problem  of  the  Incarnation        257 

we  mean  by  Divinity,  what  it  is  which  makes  God  to 
be  God.  We  confess  that  God  is  the  All-powerful  and 
All-wise,  but  it  is  not  in  these  quaUties  that  the  essence 
of  His  Divinity  resides,  but  in  those  which  are  moral  and 
spiritual.  He  is  perfect  in  holiness  and  in  love.  We 
could  think  of  an  evil  being  endowed  with  omnipotence 
and  omniscience  giving  all  the  more  terrible  expression 
to  his  essential  devihshness  that  he  was  unrestricted 
by  limitations  in  power  or  in  knowledge.  If  we  are 
seeking  the  definition  of  God,  we  must  place  at  the 
very  centre  of  it  those  qualities  which  could  not  be 
possessed  by  that  which  was  in  essence  undivine  and 
which  could  not  be  surrendered  without  loss  of  the 
necessary  quality  of  deity.  The  New  Testament  has 
taught  us  to  recognise  that  God  is  Love.  Browning 
has  expressed  the  truth  in  his  hues  : — 

A  loving  worm  within  its  clod, 
Were  diviner  than  a  loveless  God 
Amid  His  worlds  I  would  dare  to  say. 

I  urge,  then,  that  the  less  essential  quahties  may  be 
surrendered  without  impairing  what  is  essentially 
Divine  if  they  are  surrendered  in  order  that  the 
divinest  quahties  may  receive  enhancement.  If  they 
are  sacrificed  that  love  may  gain  a  larger  scope  and  a 
deeper  satisfaction,  we  must  recognise  in  that  no  loss 
of  Divinity,  but  rather  the  winning  by  Godhood  of 
yet  fuller  and  more  congenial  expression.  And  thus 
Jesus,  as  He  Hved  on  earth;  a  weak,  mortal  man, 
sharing  our  ignorance,  and  compaissed  with  our  in- 
s 


258     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

firmity,  was  not  the  less  God,  but  the  more  God,  be- 
cause the  love  that  made  Him  God  had  risen  to  the 
most  God-like  surrender. 

I  never  realised  God's  birth  before, 
How  He  grew  likcst  God  in  being  bom. 


CHAPTER   XV 
THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

FROM  the  thought  of  the  Incarnation  our  minds 
turn  reverently  to  the  Passion  and  Resurrection 
of  our  Lord.  It  may  seem  to  some  as  if  here  the  voice 
of  Theology  should  be  hushed,  and  the  Spirit  of  Devo- 
tion take  up  the  strain.  We  draw  near  the  Holy  of 
Holies  with  our  shoes  off  our  feet  and  with  the  Song 
of  the  Redeemed  on  our  Ups.  Here  it  is  fitting  that 
controversy  should  die  into  silence,  that  we  should 
stand  with  the  Beloved  Disciple  beneath  the  Cross, 
or  take  our  place  with  the  apostles  as  the  Risen  One 
is  revealed  to  our  gaze.  But  while  we  must  never 
forget  the  true  temper  of  devotion  in  all  our  probing 
of  the  intellectual  mystery,  it  would  be  a  mistaken 
reverence  to  imagine  that  we  did  most  homage  to  the 
Cross  by  renouncing  the  attempt  to  understand  it. 
For  it  is  as  its  secret  becomes  disclosed  to  us  that  we 
feel  the  spell  of  its  power.  And  it  is  the  more  neces- 
sary to  insist  on  this  since  some  who  feel  acutely 
the  difficulties  of  the  theme  adopt  an  attitude  of 
despair  and  urge  that  we  should  be  content  with 
asserting  the  fact  of  the  Atonement  without  seeking 
to  construct  a  theory. 

259 


26o     Christianity:  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

We  are  intellectually  so  constituted  that  we  cannot 
permanently  be  content  to  place  in  the  centre  of  our 
message  something  of  which  we  can  give  no  rational 
account.  Of  course,  it  is  not  our  view  of  the  Atone- 
ment that  saves  us,  and  it  would  be  an  evil  day  for  the 
future  of  Christianity  when  the  acceptance  of  a  par- 
ticular theory  of  the  work  of  Christ  should  be  made 
necessary  to  salvation.  We  have  had  too  much  of  that 
folly  in  the  past,  but  the  mistakes  of  our  predecessors 
ought  to  be  a  warning  to  ourselves.  The  fundamental 
thing  to  beheve  is  that  it  is  God  in  Christ  who  saves 
us.  This  is  all  that  is  necessary  for  saving  faith.  The 
soul  casts  itself  in  trust  upon  Christ,  and  need  have 
formulated  no  scheme  of  doctrine  in  order  to  account 
for  the  possibility  of  its  experience.  The  message  of 
Christ  is  not  "  Believe  in  this  doctrine  or  that,"  but 
"  Believe  in  Me."  But  while  for  the  individual  sinner 
who  is  seeking  salvation  a  theory  of  the  Atonement 
is  unnecessary,  the  theologian  cannot  afford  to  do 
without  it.  And  even  the  ordinary  Christian,  on  whom 
the  burden  of  constructing  a  system  of  doctrine  does 
not  rest,  will  find  that  his  hold  on  Christian  truth  is 
deepened  and  his  religious  life  is  strengthened  if  he 
does  not  relegate  the  fact  of  salvation  to  the  realm 
of  the  unintelligible,  but  seeks  to  reach  a  clear  per- 
ception of  its  meaning.  Naturally  we  must  leave  room 
for  a  large  element  of  mystery.  They  have  not  been 
the  best  friends  of  Christian  truth  who  have  constructed 
a  theory  of  the  Atonement  as  lucid  and  as  inevitable 


The  Work  of  Christ  261 

as  the  multiplication  table.  We  are  dealing  here  with 
the  deep  secrets  of  the  Divine  counsel,  and  must 
reverently  guard  ourselves  against  the  lack  of  modesty 
displayed  by  those  who  profess  to  explain  everything. 
Yet  we  must  not  be  daunted  by  these  considerations, 
and  renounce  the  attempt  to  gain  any  insight  into 
the  principles  that  came  to  expression  in  the  work  of 
Christ.  In  the  presence  of  these  august  realities  in 
which  God  is  doing  His  mightiest  work  what  can  we 
be  but  humbled  and  abashed,  conscious  how  httle 
we  are  able  to  fathom  His  impenetrable  designs  ?  To 
the  mind  of  antiquity  it  seemed  to  be  dangerous  to 
catch  the  Divinity  at  work.  And  though  we  have 
been  emancipated  from  these  superstitious  terrors  and 
live  in  the  glad  freedom  of  the  children  of  God,  no 
longer  avoiding  His  presence,  but  welcomed  to  His 
breast,  we  may  yet  learn  the  lesson  that  it  does  not 
become  us  to  peer  with  profane  curiosity  into  the  in- 
most secrets  of  His  action.  Yet  where  He  has  Himself 
graciously  disclosed  to  us  somewhat  of  the  mysteries 
of  His  working  we  may  reverently  seek  to  understand 
His  ways.  For  while  a  god  whom  we  fully  under- 
stood could  be  no  god  to  us,  with  a  god  whom  we 
did  not  understand  at  all  we  could  have  no  religious 
relations. 

It  is  all  the  more  important  to  insist  on  this  since 
there  is  a  widespread  tendency  to  reject  with  indiffer- 
ence the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  If  we  examine 
into  the  causes  of  this,  we  find  that  they  may  be 


262     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

roughly  classed  under  two  heads.  A  very  large  number 
reject  the  doctrine  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  have 
identified  it  with  a  particular  theory  in  which  they 
have  probably  been  brought  up,  and  are  ignorant  of 
the  well-known  fact  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an 
orthodox  theory  of  the  Atonement.  The  historian 
knows  well  enough  what  numerous  theories  have  been 
formulated,  under  what  varying  impulses,  and  with 
what  strange  results.  He  is,  therefore,  well  aware  that 
the  identification  of  any  theory  with  the  fact  cannot 
be  made  legitimately  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  The 
practical  mischief  has  been  that  in  sheer  ignorance 
many  have  abandoned  the  fact  because  they  could  not 
honestly  accept  the  theory  which  they  erroneously 
imagined  to  be  identical  ^vith  it.  But  there  are  others 
who  reject  the  fact  itself  because  it  does  not  harmonise 
with  the  theological  or  philosophical  presuppositions 
with  which  they  approach  it.  But  frequently  these 
presuppositions  have  been  unconsciously  accepted  as 
axiomatic  without  any  suspicion  that  they  needed  to 
be  very  critically  examined.  We  have  certain  ideas 
that  exist  as  the  outcome  of  experience  in  very 
rough-and-ready  form  which  we  unhesitatingly  apply 
as  touchstones  of  the  truth  of  such  doctrines  as  that 
of  the  Atonement.  But  we  need  to  remember,  in  the 
first  place,  that  our  human  experience  gives  us  these 
ideas,  not  in  their  pure,  essential  meaning,  but  often 
in  very  crude  and  misleading  forms.  We  need  to  see 
them,  not  as  they  emerge  in  our  human  conditions, 


The   Work  of  Christ  263 

but  as  they  are  in  themselves.  That  is  why  it  happens 
that  human  analogies  have  frequently  proved  mis- 
leading, because  the  principles  which  they  have  only 
caricatured  have  been  transferred  in  their  caricatured 
form  to  problems  which  are  patient  of  them  only  in 
their  ideal  form.  It  is,  no  doubt,  quite  possible  to 
do  something  towards  disengaging  the  essential  truth 
from  its  crude  embodiment,  and  seeing  it  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  ideal  spectator.  Yet  it  is  plain 
that  in  trying  to  do  so  we  should  practise  constant 
self-distrust. 

And  when  a  more  adequate  doctrine  is  at  last  con- 
structed we  may  anticipate  that  several  factors  will 
go  to  its  making.  First  of  all,  the  deeper  insight  into 
Scripture  vhich  the  last  century  brought  with  it  will 
provide  us  with  richer  material  and  material  better 
understood.  We  shall  not,  as  the  older  theologians  did, 
construct  a  patchwork  by  taking  elements  indiscrimi- 
nately from  aU  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  then,  piecing 
them  together  into  a  whole,  call  this  ill-assorted  mix- 
ture the  BibHcal  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  On  the 
contrary,  we  shall  follow  the  method  of  BibHcal 
Theology  and  study  each  section  in  and  for  itself. 
We  shall  come  to  the  New  Testament  through  a  care- 
ful investigation  into  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  in  which  we  shall  mark  the  contribution  made 
by  the  great  individual  writers,  and  study  with  what 
thoroughness  we  can  the  history  of  the  religious  in- 
stitutions and,  in  this  connexion  especially,  the  sacri- 


264     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ficial  system.  Then,  when  we  come  to  the  New 
Testament,  we  shall  be  similarly  discriminating.  We 
shall  seek  to  understand  the  different  types  of  teach- 
ing it  contains — the  teaching  of  Jesus,  of  Paul,  of  John, 
of  Peter,  and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  When 
that  has  been  accomplished,  the  next  step  will  be  to 
work  these  different  systems  into  a  connected  scheme 
that  our  theory  may  be  marked  by  the  largeness  and 
many-sided  character  which  belongs  to  the  New 
Testament  as  a  whole.  For,  happily,  the  New  Testa- 
ment presents  us  with  a  treatment  of  the  problem 
from  several  different  points  of  view,  so  that  what 
could  not  be  adequately  seen  from  one  standpoint 
should  have  justice  done  to  it  from  another.  Then 
we  shall  follow  the  course  of  the  doctrine  as  it  has  been 
developed  in  Christian  thought,  and  thus  learn  how 
the  needs  of  the  Church  and  various  types  of  experi- 
ence have  created  for  themselves  congenial  forms  of 
statement.  Nor  shall  we  be  indifferent  to  the  Hght 
that  has  been  cast  by  philosophy  and  especially  by 
the  study  of  ethics  upon  the  problem.  All  the  difficult 
questions  which  cluster  about  forgiveness,  for  example, 
must  be  taken  into  account  by  the  systematic  theo- 
logian as  he  seeks  to  accomphsh  his  task.  Moreover, 
he  must  not  sink  below  the  moral  standard  of  his  own 
time ;  he  must  be  sensitive  to  the  demand  that  the 
action  of  God  shall  be  exhibited  in  harmony  with  the 
most  elevated  morality.  He  must  not  permit  himself 
to  think  that  immorality  ceases  to  be  immorality 


The   Work  of  Christ  265 

when  it  is  attributed  to  God,  although  of  course  he 
will  recognise  that  there  are  differences  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  which  permit  some  action  on  the  part  of 
God  that  would  be  wrong  if  done  by  man.  Yet  this 
principle  must  not  be  allowed  to  cover  an  extension 
to  which  it  does  not  legitimately  apply. 

Again,  we  must  not  overlook  the  influence  of  en- 
vironment.   A  man  is  bom  into  the  world  at  a  certain 
point  in  history,  becomes  a  member  of  a  definite  com- 
munity in  a  particular  nation.    From  an  early  period 
the  ideals,  the  modes  of  thought,  the  customs,  the 
methods  of  government,  the  standards  of  Ufe,  which 
he  finds  in  his  family,  his  social  circle,  and  his  country, 
are  at  work  upon  him,  moulding  him  insensibly  and 
fixing  very  largely  his  outlook  upon  Ufe.    And  there- 
fore when  he  comes  to  a  great  problem  such  as  the 
problem  of  the  Atonement  he  is  apt  to  look  upon  it 
from  the  standpoint  of  contemporary  culture.     And 
so  we  find  that  important  doctrines  of  the  Atonement 
have  been  formulated  and  received  wide  acceptance 
which  have  simply  reflected  the  ideals  of  their  authors' 
own  age.    The  relation  of  God  to  humanity,  the  line 
on  which  He  must  deal  with  sin,  have  been  depicted 
again  and  again  as  those  which  subsisted  between  a 
monarch  and  his  subjects  at  the  time  when  the  theory 
in  question  was  constructed.    Law  especially  has  exer- 
cised a  very  powerful  influence.    If  the  theologian  was 
familiar  with  Roman  Law,  then  his  theory  applied 
the  ideas  of  crime  and  penalty  which  he  derived  from 


266     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  with  Teutonic  Law, 
then  his  doctrine  was  coloured  throughout  by  its  con- 
ception of  justice.  This  sensitiveness  to  the  external 
conditions  has  resulted  in  very  unworthy  conceptions 
alike  of  God  and  of  human  redemption.  We  must 
never  forget  that  God  is  not  bound  to  act  on  principles 
and  by  methods  which  seem  natural  to  us  with  our 
training  and  outlook.  His  ways  and  thoughts  are  in- 
comparably higher  than  our  own.  How  foolish,  then, 
to  make  our  imperfect  wisdom  the  measure  of  His 
action,  or  take  our  human  forms  of  government  as  if 
they  were  the  embodiment  of  the  laws  by  which  He 
governs  the  universe.  It  is  surely  probable  that  much 
which  we  now  take  as  a  matter  of  course  in  our  present 
civiHsation  and  modes  of  administering  justice  will 
seem  as  barbarous  to  our  successors  as  the  methods  of 
our  predecessors  seem  to  us.  The  eternal  truth  of  God 
must  not  be  tied  up  with  changing  modes  of  human 
administration.  It  is  also  imperative  for  us  to  re- 
member that  the  Bible  is  not  a  technical  treatise  on 
theology.  It  speaks  the  language  of  everyday  life, 
and  it  must  not  be  read  as  if  it  were  written  in  scien- 
tifically precise  terminology.  And  especially  is  this 
true  of  its  metaphors.  The  Bible  uses  these  in  its 
vivid  pictorial  way,  but  we  only  abuse  them  if  we  make 
them  exact  conceptions  to  be  rigidly  pressed  to  ex- 
treme logical  conclusions.  For  example,  the  theory 
which  held  such  wide  sway  for  many  centuries,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  a  ransom  paid  to  the  devil, 


The  Work  of  Christ  267 

could  never  have  originated  except  from  an  attempt 
to  work  out  to  its  logical  issues  what  seemed  to  be 
implied  in  the  Biblical  metaphor  of  ransom.  I  do  not, 
of  course,  intend  that  we  should  empty  Biblical  lan- 
guage of  its  meaning.  But  we  should  ascertain  that 
meaning  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  the 
people's  and  not  simply  the  theologian's  book. 

Naturally  the  present  discussion  does  not  carry  out 
the  ambitious  programme  I  have  sketched,  but  a 
wholesome  reminder  of  the  Hues  on  which  an  adequate 
theory  must  be  constructed  is  not  irrelevant,  since  it 
warns  us  against  undue  haste  and  super ficiahty.  With 
these  thoughts  in  our  mind  we  may  approach  the  con- 
sideration of  our  theme. 

Theology  has  often  suffered  from  undue  limitations 
in  its  conception  of  the  work  of  Christ  by  concentrating 
attention  too  exclusively  upon  His  death.  It  is  well, 
therefore,  at  the  outset  to  insist  on  the  largeness  of 
the  work  accomphshed  by  Him.  Many  have  spoken 
as  though  the  purpose  of  the  Incarnation  was  ex- 
hausted in  the  Atonement,  as  if  Jesus  was  bom  merely 
that  He  might  die.  But  we  have  to  find  the  work  of 
Jesus  not  simply  in  redemption,  but  also  in  revelation. 
He  came,  first  of  all,  to  reveal  the  nature  of  God.  He 
lived  the  Divine  life  under  our  human  Umitations,  and 
thus  translated  the  ineffable  qualities  of  the  Divine 
into  a  human  life  and  character  which  even  the  least 
intelligent  could  love  and  reverence  and  in  his  measure 
understand.    But  He  revealed  also  the  true  ideal  of 


268     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

humanity.  He  showed  us  not  only  what  God  is,  but 
what  we  ought  to  be.  He  set  the  perfect  standard  in 
religion  and  conduct  alike,  so  that  in  our  moral  and 
spiritual  efforts  we  might  have  a  goal  before  us  to 
guide  us  aright.  Moreover,  even  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion is  too  often  confined  to  the  death  of  Christ.  This, 
however,  is  unscriptural.  The  New  Testament  lays 
very  great  stress  in  this  connexion  upon  Christ's 
resurrection,  not  simply  as  something  that  attests  the 
claims  which  Jesus  made  for  Himself,  or  cancels  the 
curse  upon  Him  involved  in  His  death,  but  as  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  work  of  salvation.  Further,  we 
cannot  detach  the  death  of  Christ  from  His  life.  The 
Incarnation  was  itself  a  sacrifice,  and  the  sacrificial 
quality  penetrated  the  whole  of  His  earthly  career. 
No  doubt  there  is  a  peculiar  significance  attached  to 
the  experience  of  Calvary,  but  we  impoverish  the 
Gospel  when  we  fix  our  gaze  on  Calvary  with  such 
intensity  as  to  be  blind  to  the  significance  of  Bethlehem 
and  Galilee,  the  empty  grave  and  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
Many  theologians  have,  in  fact,  held  that,  even  had 
there  been  no  sin,  the  Incarnation  would  still  have  been 
necessary  in  order  to  complete  our  humanity  and  per- 
fectly reveal  God.  This  raises,  of  course,  a  purely 
theoretical  issue,  since,  if  what  I  have  said  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  sin  is  correct,  sin  was  an  inevitable 
stage  in  the  moral  development  of  mankind.  But  I 
mention  it  as  illustrating  the  truth  that  the  Incarnation 
was  intended  to  serve  other  purposes  than  the  redemp- 


The   Work  of  Christ  269 

tion  of  the  world  from  sin.  But  we  have,  in  fact,  to 
deal  with  a  sinful  world  which  is  the  subject  of  redemp- 
tion, and  it  is  here  that  the  difficulties  of  our  subject 
are  really  felt. 

Nowhere  do  we  see  more  clearly  the  truth  that  the 
working  out  of  the  theological  system  depends  on  the 
conception  of  God  than  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment. We  must  beware  of  representing  God  in  an 
unholy  light,  as  a  sullen  or  a  punctiHous,  a  self-seeking 
or  a  vindictive  Being.  We  must  not  so  emphasise  His 
unbending  justice  as  to  forget  His  mercy  and  His  love, 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  imagine  Him  to  be  a  merely 
good-natured,  indulgent  Deity.  We  do  best  when  we 
cleave  most  closely  to  Christ's  thoughts  of  God.  Now 
the  thought  en  which  Christ  most  loved  to  dwell  was 
the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  is  often  urged  that  this  is 
an  inadequate  conception,  since  the  relations  of  God 
to  the  race  are  wider  than  the  relations  of  a  father 
to  a  family.  But  it  is  very  significant  that  Jesus 
threw  into  prominence  the  idea  of  Fatherhood  and 
laid  httle,  if  any,  stress  on  conceptions  which  have 
been  allowed  to  dominate  theology.  I  do  not  myself 
think  it  is  quite  reverent  for  Christ's  followers  to 
belittle  His  fundamental  conceptions  in  this  way, 
and  the  answer  to  the  difficulty  that  is  urged  must  be 
sought  in  a  more  comprehensive  definition  of  Father- 
hood. What  was  central  and  fundamental  to  Him, 
who  knew  God  as  no  one  else  has  known  Him,  must 
be  central  and  fundamental  to  us. 


270     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

From  this  point  of  view,  then,  we  must,  in  harmony 
with  the  New  Testament,  regard  the  Atonement  as 
pre-eminently  the  outcome  of  God's  grace  and  love. 
This  at  once  frees  us  from  the  pagan  notion  which  has 
played  so  large  a  part  in  popular  ideas  that  the  death 
of  Christ  was  necessary  to  appease  an  angry  God. 
The  truth  is,  rather,  that  the  death  of  Christ  could 
never  have  taken  place  had  not  God's  attitude  to 
mankind  been  one  of  yearning  love.  Yet  we  must 
not  cheapen  the  idea  of  love.  The  love  of  God  is  holy 
love.  His  righteousness  must  set  Him  in  unrelenting 
conflict  with  sin.  Nay,  we  must  not  shrink  from  speak- 
ing of  the  anger  of  God.  A  being  incapable  of  moral 
indignation,  who  could  look  upon  oppression  and 
wrong  without  feeling  anger  at  those  who  perpetrated 
it,  would  be  too  morally  base  to  deserve  the  title  of 
God.  But  even  the  anger  and  the  holiness  and  the 
righteousness,  if  we  csui  only  understand  it,  are  ele- 
ments in  the  consuming  fire  of  His  love.  The  Father 
sees  mankind  as  His  children,  the  victims  of  sin.  His 
chief  concern  is  for  their  good,  how  the  sin  which  has 
bHghted  their  character  may  become  a  thing  of  the 
past.  And  it  is  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
that  the  Gospel  finds  God's  answer  to  this  problem. 

Now  the  first  stage  in  the  upward  path  is  to  bring 
the  sinner  to  realise  the  true  nature  of  his  sin.  Paul 
attaches  great  importance  to  the  recognition  of  sin's 
real  character.  He  points  out  that  it  was  one  of  the 
functions  of  the  Law  to  reveal  the  exceeding  sinfulness 


The   Work  of  Christ  271 

of  sin.  Sin  pressed  the  holy  Law  of  God  into  its 
unhallowed  service,  and  thus,  by  perverting  that  Law 
into  its  tool,  it  revealed  its  own  intrinsic  baseness. 
Christ's  first  work  is  to  convict  the  world  of  sin,  and 
He  does  this  in  various  ways.  First  of  all,  by  the 
shock  of  contrast  between  our  character  and  His  own. 
As  we  consider  the  perfect  beauty  of  His  Hfe  we  are 
awakened  to  the  imperfection  of  our  own.  And, 
secondly,  by  His  exhibition  of  the  nature  and  love  of 
God.  For  here  again  the  contrast  between  the  hoH- 
ness  of  our  heavenly  Father  and  our  own  evil  nature 
brings  home  to  us  a  sense  of  the  moral  difference 
which  lies  between  us,  while  the  revelation  of  God's 
love  displays  the  unfiHal  ingratitude  of  our  rebellion. 
But  this  revelation  finds  its  cHmax  in  the  death  of 
Christ.  The  fact  that  sinful  man  could  so  handle  the 
Holy  One  of  God  revealed  as  nothing  else  could  do 
sin's  dark  mahgnity.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fact 
that  to  save  man  from  sin  God  surrendered  His  Son 
to  death  showed  how  virulent  He  deemed  the  poison 
to  be  with  which  mankind  was  infected.  It  is  very 
important  to  lay  stress  on  this  aspect  of  our  theme. 
In  our  everyday  Hfe  we  know  how  vital  it  is  to  awaken 
the  offender  to  the  real  gravity  of  his  offence.  And 
the  task  is  pecuharly  difficult.  It  is  one  of  the  worst 
features  of  sin  that  it  drugs  the  sinner's  conscience. 
It  numbs  his  perception  of  the  mischief  which  is  at  work 
within  him.  Hence  he  is  light-hearted  about  it,  is  not 
dissatisfied  with  himself,  and  the  more  habituated  he 


272     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

becomes  to  evil  the  less  the  concern  it  gives  him. 
But  if  he  has  any  capacity  for  amendment,  the  con- 
science is  likely  to  be  stirred  by  the  spectacle  of  the 
ruin  and  havoc  which  is  wrought  by  his  sin.  Not,  in- 
deed, that  this  is  invariably  the  case.  For  many  seem 
to  pass  beyond  the  stage  at  which  even  this  causes 
them  disquiet.  But  this  may  help  us  to  understand 
one  of  the  functions  fulfilled  by  the  Cross.  Once  we 
have  realised  that  it  was  sin  which  crucified  the  sinless 
One  we  understand  as  never  before  its  intrinsic  char- 
acter. 

And  thus  repentance  is  created.  It  is  often  said, 
Why  should  not  God  forgive  the  sinner  when  he  re- 
pents without  any  necessity  for  the  death  of  Christ  ? 
Those  who  argue  in  this  way  have  probably  not  asked 
themselves  how  much  is  impUed  in  the  condition  which 
they  lay  down.  Is  repentance  so  easy,  so  common- 
place a  matter  ?  A  superficial  repentance  is  not  diffi- 
cult. But  when  we  talk  of  repentance  we  ought  to 
mean  something  much  more  than  that.  We  ought  to 
mean  a  clear  perception  of  the  gravity  of  our  fault. 
We  must  recognise  our  desperate  case,  understand 
how  deeply  the  cancer  has  eaten  into  our  soul,  think 
of  all  the  wilfulness  and  bHndness,  the  ingratitude  and 
selfishness  which  our  life  of  sin  day  after  day  and 
year  after  year  has  involved.  It  is  not  a  situation 
to  be  dealt  with  by  apologies  or  regrets.  It  is  some- 
thing that  demands  a  passionate  sorrow,  a  whole- 
hearted abhorrence  of  our  evil  past,  a  hearty  acceptance 


The  Work  of  Christ  273 

of  God's  standpoint  with  reference  to  our  sin.  Indeed, 
it  is  often  only  as  the  Christian  life  itself  expands  and 
deepens  that  repentance  begins  to  become  at  all  ade- 
quate. It  is  the  saint  who  is  the  true  penitent,  and 
seeing  that  the  task  of  repentance  is  so  difficult,  when 
we  have  rightly  understood  what  it  involves,  we  shall 
distrust  aU  rose-water  methods  of  tinkering  with  the 
disease. 

But  the  question  arises  at  this  point,  Is  repentance 
in  this  deep,  full  sense  an  adequate  ground  of  forgive- 
ness ?  Is  the  Cross  of  Christ  simply  an  instrument  for 
creating  penitence,  or  is  it  something  more  ?  I  think 
we  are  not  faithful  to  the  New  Testament  standpoint 
unless  we  recognise  that  it  is  something  more.  For- 
giveness is  not  something  to  be  taken  for  granted  too 
easily.  The  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  expresses  in 
the  most  beautiful  way  the  love  and  welcome  which  is 
in  the  Father's  heart.  But  that  love,  just  because  it 
is  love,  must  be  holy,  righteous  love,  and  it  is  a  perilous 
thing  to  build  the  whole  doctrine  of  salvation  on  a 
single  parable,  as  if  this  exhausted  the  whole  message 
of  the  Gospel.  Paul  brings  out  one  very  important 
element  in  his  famous  passage  on  the  new  righteous- 
ness in  the  third  chapter  of  Romans.  There  was  a 
danger  lest  God's  forbearance  in  the  past  should  lead 
men  to  misinterpret  His  clemency  as  indifference  to 
sin.  Such  a  misconception  struck  a  blow  at  the  vitals 
of  ethical  reUgion,  and  therefore  Paul  explains  God's 
action  in  the  death  of  Christ  as  designed  to  vindicate 
I 


274     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

Him  from  the  charge  of  such  moral  indifference.  Even 
at  this  tremendous  cost  it  had  to  be  made  plain  that 
God  did  not  palter  with  moral  considerations.  The 
Cross  of  Christ  is  the  vindication  of  God's  HoHness. 
And  we  ourselves  recognise  it  to  be  true  that  an  easy 
forgiveness  may  be  a  sign  of  moral  shallowness.  It 
may  mean  that  the  injured  person  has  no  adequate 
appreciation  of  the  gravity  of  the  offence.  He  forgives 
so  easily  because  for  him  the  wrong  is  so  trivial.  An 
adequate  forgiveness  must  include  a  full  recognition 
of  the  heinousness  of  the  act.  In  our  own  case  it  is  so 
easy  to  mask  unworthy  resentment  behind  the  plea  of 
a  love  for  justice  that  we  must  always  be  on  our  guard 
against  a  grudging  forgiveness.  But  the  ideal  attitude 
is  that  the  heart  should  always  be  ready  to  forgive 
even  while  the  forgiveness  itself  must  wait  for  a  suffi- 
cient penitence.  It  is  not  good  for  the  transgressor 
that  he  should  be  forgiven  on  too  easy  terms,  or  his 
moral  standard  tends  to  be  degraded.  And  God,  in 
whom  there  is  no  trace  of  resentment,  but  whose  whole 
heart  moves  with  love  towards  the  sinful,  must  yet, 
because  He  is  the  holy  God  and  because  His  love  seeks 
the  sinner's  highest  good,  wait  to  forgive  tiU  the  claims 
of  His  own  imperious  righteousness  are  satisfied.  And 
so  we  may  say  that,  while  God's  action  is  always 
prompted  by  His  love,  it  is  always  conditioned  by  His 
righteousness. 

It  has  been  held  by  many  that  the  right  word  in 
which  to  express  the  essence  of  the  Atonement  is 


The  Work  of  Christ  275 

substitution.  The  sinner  has  broken  the  holy  law  of 
God,  and  our  moral  instincts  recognise  the  justice  of 
penalty  for  the  offence.  And  since  man  could  not 
cancel  his  guilt  there  was  no  way  of  dehverance  from 
punishment  open  to  him,  unless  that  punishment  was 
vicariously  borne  by  one  to  whom  it  was  not  due. 
Hence  the  Son  of  God  became  man  in  order  that  He 
might  bear  the  penalty  which  should  be  inflicted  upon 
us.  So  justice  was  satisfied  and  salvation  was  pro- 
cured. I  do  not  deny  that  this  theory  has  within  it 
a  strong  element  of  appeal,  and  that,  preached  with 
fervour  and  conviction,  it  has  often  won  the  sinner 
from  his  evil  way.  But  it  has  done  this  in  virtue  of  the 
elements  of  truth  which  it  contains  in  common  with 
other  presentations,  not  in  virtue  of  the  weaknesses 
which  a  more  careful  scrutiny  cannot  fail  to  discover 
in  it.  I  can  even  recognise  for  it  a  relative  justifica- 
tion, but  we  must  go  beneath  it  if  we  are  to  reach  the 
truth.  It  is  often  thought  that  we  are  committed  to 
some  theory  of  this  kind  by  the  language  of  Paul. 
I  am  convinced,  however,  that  this  is  not  the  case. 
Had  the  question  been  put  to  Paul — Did  Christ  die  in 
our  stead  ? — I  think  he  would  have  answered  that  in 
a  certain  sense  this  statement  might  pass,  but  the  very 
putting  of  it  implied  that  the  real  significance  of  the 
death  of  Christ  had  not  been  correctly  apprehended. 
It  is  not  Paul's  deepest  word  on  this  subject. 

The  objections  to  the  substitution  theory  are  clear. 
In  the  first  place,  such  a  theory  is  not  found  in  Scrip- 


276     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

ture.  We  learn  that  Christ  died  on  our  behalf ;  we 
do  not  read  that  He  died  in  our  stead.  If  it  is  replied 
that  Christ's  death  is  represented  as  a  sacrifice,  I  must 
simply  point  out  that  Hebrew  sacrifice  was  in  no  sense 
substitutionary  in  character.  In  the  second  place, 
punishment  cannot  properly  be  transferred.  If  it  is 
inflicted  on  the  innocent  while  the  guilty  go  free,  it 
ceases  to  be  punishment,  and  justice  receives  a  double 
wound.  In  the  next  place,  the  theory  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  the  facts.  The  penalties  of  sin  were  not 
endured  by  Christ,  nor  do  we  escape  from  them  in 
virtue  of  His  death.  The  worst  penalty  of  sin  Christ 
could  not  in  the  nature  of  the  case  endure.  For  sin 
brings  with  it  its  own  punishment  in  the  alienation 
and  hatred  of  God  which  it  produces,  in  the  blunting 
of  moral  feeUng,  in  the  sense  of  personal  guilt,  in  the 
wretchedness  of  a  soul  out  of  harmony  with  itself. 
These  things  Christ  could  not  endure,  nor  could  He 
endure  such  penalties  in  the  after-life  as  are  usually 
associated  with  sin.  Neither  in  quantity  nor  in  dura- 
tion were  the  suflerings  He  endured  co-extensive  with 
the  effects  which  sin  brings  upon  the  human  race. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  it  remains  true  just  as  before 
that  we  feel  in  ourselves  the  baleful  effects  of  our 
transgressions,  our  vices  do  not  cease  to  scourge  us, 
the  body  and  the  mind  bear  on  them  the  wounds  of 
moral  defeat,  and  we  all  have  at  last  to  pay  the  common 
debt  of  Nature.  Nor  do  our  difficulties  cease  here. 
For  if  Christ  endured  the  whole  penalty  of  sin,  then 


The  Work  of  Christ  277 

it  can  no  longer  be  inflicted  on  the  sinful.  And  this 
logically  involves  one  of  two  alternatives.  Either  we 
must  say  with  the  Calvinists  that  the  Atonement  is 
limited,  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect ;  or  if,  in  defer- 
ence to  the  plain  statements  of  Scripture,  we  assert 
the  imiversaUty  of  the  Atonement,  then  we  must  infer 
the  salvation  of  all,  independently  of  character.  For 
if  Christ  has  exhausted  all  the  penalty  in  His  own 
Person,  then  none  remains  to  be  inflicted  on  those 
for  whom  He  died,  and  it  violates  the  elementary 
instincts  of  justice  that  the  full  punishment  should 
be  twice  exacted  for  the  same  sin.  If,  in  reply  to  this, 
it  be  said  that  unbelief  justifies  the  repetition  of  the 
punishment,  I  must  point  out  that  this  cannot  be 
conceded.  For  if  Christ  bore  the  whole  penalty  of 
sin.  He  bore  the  penalty  of  the  sinner's  unbelief.  Paul 
has  drawn  for  us,  clearly  and  sharply,  the  distinction 
between  debt  and  grace  and  shown  us  that  they  are 
mutually  incompatible,  and  we  must  refrain  from  in- 
troducing the  old  contradiction  in  a  new  form. 

How,  then,  shall  we  formulate  a  theory  that 
escapes  the  objections  to  which  the  substitutionary 
theory  is  exposed,  while  at  the  same  time  we  main- 
tain the  truth  that  it  seeks  to  express  ?  Let  us  go 
back  to  the  discussion  of  Paul's  doctrine  touching 
Adam  and  Christ.  We  saw  that  he  regarded  the  act 
of  Adam  not;  as  an  individual,  but  as  a  racial  act. 
He  did  not  say  Adam  sinned  in  our  stead  and  we  bear 
the  penalty.    He  said  rather  Adam's  sin  was  our  sin. 


278     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

We  must  accordingly  explain  the  work  of  Christ  upon 
similar  lines.  His  death  was  our  death.  It  was  no 
individual  act,  but  was  the  act  of  the  whole  human 
race.  This  is  what  Paul  meant  when  he  said,  "  We 
thus  judge  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  all  died." 
He  meant  that  on  the  Cross  it  was  not  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth alone,  but  Christ,  who  embraced  within  Himself 
all  humanity,  that  suffered  and  died.  In  this  experi- 
ence Jesus  made  Himself  one  with  us  and  He  made  us 
one  with  Himself.  He  made  Himself  one  with  us. 
In  a  deep  and  true  sense  He  had  been  one  with  us 
from  the  beginning.  We  were  created  in  Him,  and 
He  was  the  Head  of  every  man.  Even  before  He 
became  incarnate  He  was  our  brother,  and  became 
incarnate  because  He  honoured  the  fraternal  tie.  And 
in  His  human  Ufe  He  identified  Himself  to  the  utmost 
extent  with  His  brethren.  He  shared  aU  our  infirmi- 
ties and  felt  the  strain  of  all  our  temptations.  He 
knew  pain  and  suffering,  scorn  and  rejection,  desertion 
and  betrayal. 

And  it  is  especially  in  its  relation  to  sin  that  the 
problem  concerns  us.  He  was  the  sinless  One,  and 
therefore  He  could  not  know  by  experience  the  stain 
of  evil  in  His  own  spirit,  nor  could  He  repent  for  His 
own  guilt.  Yet  He  must  acquaint  Himself  with  our 
burden  that  He  might  truly  bear  it.  And  this  was 
one  of  the  most  terrible  elements  in  His  trial.  Just 
as  we  recoil  from  what  creates  physical  disgust,  so 
Jesus  recoiled  from  sin.     But  He  braced  Himself  to 


The   Work  of  Christ  279 

face  it  that  He  might  know  its  uttermost  evil.  And 
as  He  faced  it  His  horror  deepened.  He  felt  keen 
agony  for  the  wrong  inflicted  on  God  and  for  all  the 
incalculable  evil  it  wrought  among  men.  He  saw  it 
all  with  a  lucidity  of  sinless  vision  undimmed  by  any 
shortcoming  in  Himself.  But  He  felt  not  pain  only, 
but  shame.  For  the  shadow  of  all  theS3  nameless  un- 
numbered evils  was  cast  upon  Himself.  It  was  His 
own  brothers  who  had  age  after  age  built  that  dark 
and  bewildering  labyrinth  of  evil  through  whose  mazes 
He  forced  His  shuddering  soul  to  pass.  For  He  must 
know  our  sin,  know  it  not  as  an  abstraction  or  a  vague 
generaHsation,  but  as  a  concrete  hideous  reality. 
What  wonder  that,  sickened  by  the  horror  of  it.  He 
fell  into  an  agony  and  prayed  that  the  cup  might  pass 
from  Him  1 

But  more  than  this  was  necessary.  He  must  not 
only  familiarise  Himself  with  the  repulsive  character 
of  sin ;  He  must  know  also  what  sin  involved.  He 
must  come  as  close  as  possible  to  us  in  His  experience 
of  the  consequences  of  sin.  Some  of  the  older  theo- 
logians, in  their  coarse  way,  with  their  mind  fastened 
on  material  suffering,  spoke  of  Jesus  as  enduring  on 
the  Cross  all  the  pains  of  the  damned.  The  expression 
was  crude ;  there  was  upon  it  the  taint  of  commer- 
cialism ;  beneath  it  lay  the  thought  that  the  pain 
endured  must  be  the  equivalent  of  the  pain  which 
would  have  been  endured  by  those  whom  He  saved. 
But  there  was  a  real  meaning  imderlying  all  the 


2  So     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

mythology  of  the  expression.  It  was  part  of  His 
identification  with  us  that  He  should  know,  so  far  as 
a  sinless  being  could  know,  the  wages  of  sin.  He  must 
taste  the  last  dregs  in  the  cup.  The  utmost  evil  is 
the  separation  which  sin  creates  between  man  and 
God,  that  is  the  true  death,  and  this  death  Jesus  died 
before  He  yielded  His  spirit  into  His  Father's  hands. 
As  He  goes  forward  with  the  work  of  human  redemp- 
tion, bearing  with  fortitude  not  only  the  physical  pain, 
but  the  deep  mental  agony  for  sin,  \vrestling  with 
principalities  and  powers,  and  conscious  of  God's 
approval,  there  comes  upon  Him  with  a  bewildering 
shock  the  sense  that  His  Father,  who  had  been  with 
Him  and  on  whom  He  had  always  stayed  His  soul, 
had  withdrawn  from  Him.  It  was  not  that  God  had 
ceased  to  sympathise  and  approve ;  it  was  that  the 
deepest  consequence  of  sin  might  not  be  evaded. 
This  was  the  sharpest  of  all  the  pangs  which  Jesus 
was  called  upon  to  suffer,  and  this  He  endured  because 
He  made  Himself  one  with  us. 

Christ,  then,  knowing  sin  as  He  did,  recognising  all 
its  virulence  and  its  deep  disloyalty,  assents  with  all 
His  strength  to  the  condemnation  God  passes  upon  it, 
and  accepts  the  consequence  to  which  it  leads.  But 
His  act  is  the  act  of  the  race,  and  thus  in  Him  the 
race  confesses  its  guilt  and  accepts  the  consequences. 
And  so  God  passes  a  new  judgment  upon  the  race, 
no  longer  the  judgment  of  condemnation,  but  the 
judgment  of  approval.    He  sees  the  race,  not  as  it 


The  Work  of  Christ  281 

stood  in  the  First,  but  as  it  stands  in  the  Second 
Man. 

It  may  be  said,  Is  not  this  a  fanciful  theory  with 
no  correspondence  in  actual  fact  ?  What  are  we  to 
make  of  the  idea  that  in  the  death  of  Jesus  humanity 
died  ?  I  do  not  think  that  the  term  "  representative," 
which  sufficed  to  define  the  relation  in  which  Paul 
conceived  the  first  Adam  to  stand  to  us,  is  adequate 
to  depict  the  relation  between  Christ  and  the  race. 
Christ  is  more  than  our  representative.  Indeed,  had 
He  been  no  more  He  could  not  have  represented  us. 
For  it  is  quite  clear,  as  we  look  abroad  at  the  world, 
that  a  sinless  holy  Being  stands  apart  from  us  by  so 
deep  a  gulf  that  He  cannot  be  fitly  said  to  represent 
us.  And  yet  an  original  relation  subsists  between 
Christ  and  the  race.  It  strikes  its  roots  into  the  Second 
as  it  does  into  the  First  Adam.  It  is  this  relation 
which  provides  the  basis  for  the  Incarnation.  But  in 
order  that  He  might  achieve  the  work  of  our  redemp- 
tion He  had  not  simply  to  stand  for  us,  but  to  become 
one  with  us.  The  term  we  need  to  express  this  is 
not  representation,  but  identification.  He  became  so 
one  with  us  as  to  assume  all  our  responsibihties,  and, 
so  to  speak,  by  a  dead  hft  to  raise  us  out  of  the  horrible 
pit  and  the  miry  clay. 

The  thought  of  solidarity,  of  our  union  and  mutual 
responsibihty,  is  one  on  which  our  own  age  lays  great 
stress,  but  which  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.   Paul  insists  that  we  are  all  members  one  of 


282     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

another,  and  that  nothing  can  overtake  the  individual 
without  affecting  the  collective  body.  We  see  how 
the  sin  of  one  often  involves  many  more  in  the  suffer- 
ing it  entails.  There  is  a  deep  truth  in  the  idea  of 
vicarious  suffering  as  seen  in  everyday  life.  It  is  our 
constant  experience  to  see  the  innocent  suffer  for  the 
guilty.  But  it  is  questionable  how  far  we  can  speak 
of  this  as  effecting  Atonement.  The  spectacle  of  it 
may  awaken  the  evildoer  to  the  true  character  of  his 
offence,  but  once  his  conscience  is  aroused  it  will  be 
difficult  to  convince  him  that  the  suffering  of  others 
has  lightened  the  guilt  that  he  has  to  bear.  For  they 
stand  distinct  one  from  another,  and  in  the  moral  sphere 
no  transference  of  merit  is  possible.  Indeed,  there  is 
no  superfluous  merit  to  be  transferred.  And  once  we 
have  understood  the  true  relations  between  man  and 
God  we  can  see  that  the  idea  that  any  one  can  be  better 
than  he  ought  to  be  is  an  absurdity.  And  this  is  true 
of  Jesus.  He  was  bound  in  His  duty  to  God  to  be  as 
good  as  it  was  possible  for  Him  to  be,  and  it  is  a  mere 
fiction  to  suppose,  as  Anselm  did,  that  Jesus  went 
beyond  what  was  required  of  Him  when,  although 
death  had  no  claim  on  the  sinless.  He  died  in  obedience 
to  the  Father's  will.  Indeed,  we  are  discussing  the 
subject  on  the  wrong  plane  when  we  treat  it  as  a 
question  of  merit  at  all.  But  what  is  not  possible 
where  there  is  separation  becomes  possible  with  identi- 
fication. It  is  possible  for  Jesus  to  suffer  on  our  behalf, 
and  for  the  benefits  of  that  suffering  to  be  appropriated 


The   Work  of  Christ  283 

by  us,  because  He  is  one  with  the  race  for  which  He 
dies.  But  we  must  be  prepared  to  carry  that  identifi- 
cation through  to  its  conclusion.  If  Jesus  really  united 
Himself  to  humanity,  then  He  made  the  lot  of  humanity 
His  own.  And  this  at  once  widens  our  whole  concep- 
tion of  His  work.  I  have  already  urged  that  we  must 
not  interpret  that  work  too  narrowly  as  concentrated 
LQ  His  death. 

But  now  I  wish  to  extend  this  principle  further, 
and  to  urge  that  we  must  regard  the  suffering  of 
Christ  as  co-extensive  with  the  suffering  of  the  race. 
Calvary  is  the  chmax  and  classical  example  of  a  pro- 
cess co-extensive  with  human  history.  And  thus  He 
works  into  His  own  redeeming  pain  the  sorrows  and 
sufferings  endured  by  the  human  race  through  all 
time.  It  is  not  that  these  sufferings  have  redemptive 
value  in  themselves,  but  they  gain  it  because  they 
become  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Thus  it  is  in  Christ, 
and  in  Him  alone,  that  mankind  achieves  redemption, 
but  its  own  suffering  receives  a  new  dignity  and  is 
endowed  with  a  higher  purpose  in  that  it  is  thus 
taken  up  by  Christ  and  made  part  of  His  own  re- 
demptive achievement.  Thus  God  sees  at  work 
another  tendency  in  the  race  which  reverses  His  own 
judgment  about  it  from  condemnation  to  justification. 

But  the  problem  is  not  simply  one  of  death  for  sin. 
There  is  something  even  deeper  than  the  cleansing 
from  sin's  guilt,  and  that  is  the  breaking  of  sin's 
power.    We  have  to  lay  stress  on  the  thought,  which 


284     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

was  very  important  to  Paul,  but  has  often  been 
neglected  in  Christian  teaching,  that  the  death  of 
Christ  was  not  only  a  death  for  sin,  but  a  death  to  sin. 
Paul  tells  us,  "  The  death  that  He  died.  He  died  unto 
sin  once."  This,  of  course,  cannot  mean  that  by  His 
death  Christ,  who  had  been  subject  to  the  dominion 
of  sin,  escaped  from  it,  inasmuch  as  He  knew  no  sin. 
But,  once  again.  He  identified  Himself  with  the  sinful 
race,  and  through  this  experience  of  death  broke  for 
Himself  and  for  humanity  the  connexion  with  sin 
which  this  entailed.  This  was  accomplished  through 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  element  in  man 
wherein  sin  had  its  seat.  The  flesh  was  nailed  to  the 
Cross,  and  with  it  the  Law  which  gave  sin  its  power. 
Thus  not  only  was  the  debt  against  us  cancelled,  but 
the  slavery  in  which  we  were  held  by  sin  was  brought 
to  an  end.  But  this  is  only  one  side  of  Paul's  state- 
ment. We  need  not  only  the  negative  deliverance 
from  sin,  we  need  the  positive  life  of  holiness.  And 
it  is  here  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  Christ's  resurrection 
comes  as  the  counterpart  to  the  doctrine  of  His  death. 
Not  only  did  Christ  die  to  sin,  but  "  the  life  that  He 
liveth,  He  liveth  unto  God."  One  might,  indeed, 
almost  say  that  Paul  attaches  more  importance  to 
the  resurrection  than  to  the  death  of  Jesus.  "  If  while 
we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  unto  God  through 
the  death  of  His  Son,  much  more  being  reconciled 
shall  we  be  saved  by  His  life  " — that  is.  His  risen  life. 
If  Christ  died  for  our  sins  He  was  also  raised  again 


The  Work  of  Christ  285 

for  our  justification.  When  the  apostle  puts  the  ques- 
tion, *'  Who  is  he  that  shall  condemn  ?  **  he  answers, 
"It  is  Christ  Jesus  that  died,  yea,  rather,  that  was 
raised  from  the  dead."  There  is  an  energy  inherent 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  it  is,  therefore,  Paul's 
aim  to  experience  "  the  power  of  His  resurrection." 
If,  then,  the  death  closes  the  old  chapter  of  sin  and 
disobedience,  the  resurrection  opens  the  new  chapter 
of  holiness  and  a  life  unto  God,  and  that  for  the  race 
just  as  the  death.  And  it  must  be  clearly  borne  in 
mind  that  it  is  only  of  the  race  as  a  race  that  I  have 
so  far  been  speaking.  How  the  racial  experiences  are 
appropriated  by  the  individual  is  the  question  that 
will  next  engage  our  attention. 


CHAPTER   XVI 
PERSONAL   SALVATION 

SO  far  we  have  looked  at  the  work  of  Christ  as 
a  racial  process.  He  identifies  Himself  with 
humanity,  assumes  its  nature,  participates  in  its  ex- 
perience, takes  on  Himself  its  responsibilities,  familiar- 
ises Himself  with  its  dark,  sinful  record,  heartily 
assents  to  God's  absolute  condemnation  of  sin,  and 
drinks  without  flinching  the  bitter  cup  of  sin's  con- 
sequences. And  thus  He  dies  for  sin  and  to  sin,  blots 
out  its  guilt  and  annihilates  its  power,  and  initiates 
a  new  life  of  holiness  to  God.  And  since  He  thus 
made  Himself  one  with  man,  the  race  that  was  in  Him 
was  freed  from  its  guilt  and  from  the  tyranny  of  sin's 
dominion,  and  there  opened  up  before  it  a  life  of 
harmony  with  God's  will.  But  now  we  have  to 
advance  a  step  further  and  ask  how  the  individual 
appropriates  the  blessings  thus  achieved. 

It  is  through  the  appUcation  to  his  case  of  principles 
with  which  we  have  now  become  familiar  that  each 
has  to  win  the  blessing  of  personal  salvation.  Now 
the  fundamental  thought  of  Paul  is  not  that  of  justi- 
fication by  faith.  That  is  an  important  but  none  the 
le^s  a  subordinate  element  in  Paul's  doctrine.    It  is 


Personal  Salvation  287 

a  consequence  deduced  from  his  central  conception  of 
union  with  Christ,  and  it  is  along  the  lines  of  this 
thought  that  we  must  construct  our  doctrine  if  we 
would  be  true  to  the  New  Testament  and  hold  the 
faith  in  its  right  proportions.  It  is  most  necessary  for 
us  at  this  point  not  to  tone  down  the  apostle's  teach- 
ing or  seek  to  make  it  more  acceptable  to  common- 
place modes  of  thought.  We  must  not  allow  ourselves 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  thought  that  Paul  means 
simply  a  moral  union.  He  means  something  much 
deeper  than  that,  and  his  language  can  be  satisfied 
only  by  the  assertion  of  a  mystical  union.  Here  we 
are  moving  in  a  region  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
is  very  obscure,  and  it  is  very  tempting  to  listen  to 
the  voices  that  recall  us  from  these  dimly  lighted  ways 
into  the  clear  and  frosty  daylight.  They  warn  us  that 
we  are  only  following  a  will-o'-the-wisp,  and  that  we 
should  renounce  the  quest  into  which  we  have  been 
deluded.  I  do  not  deny  that  a  moral  union  is  an 
nspiring  ideal,  but  I  am  sure  that  it  is  inadequate  for 
the  great  mass  of  mankind.  For  what  is  it  that  we 
need  ?  We  need  something  more  than  the  experience 
that  our  sins  are  forgiven,  we  need  to  escape  from  the 
slavery  in  which  our  will  is  bound,  and  live  the  life  of 
active  obedience  to  God.  If,  then,  I  am  told  that  the 
Christian  life  is  one  of  moral  union  with  Christ  I 
acknowledge  the  loftiness  of  the  standard ;  but  I 
ask.  Where  may  I  gain  the  strength  to  attain  it  ?  If 
the  answer  comes  that  the  message  and  experience  of 


288     Christianity  :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

forgiveness  itself  fills  the  soul  with  gratitude  and  ardent 
love  to  Him  who  has  achieved  my  deliverance,  far  be 
it  from  me  to  speak  lightly  of  such  a  motive.  But  I 
am  compelled  to  dissent  from  those  who  consider  that 
this  is  adequate. 

^  It  is  just  the  people  who  need  it  most  who  will  be 
least  able  to  make  use  of  it.  Given  a  lofty  morality 
to  begin  with,  a  natural  disposition  sensitive  to  love's 
appeal  for  whole-hearted  response,  and  there  we  have 
the  conditions  in  which  gratitude  can  do  much.  But 
we  need  a  Gospel  for  the  degraded — for  those  whose 
will  is  weak,  whose  standard  of  moraUty  is  not  naturally 
high,  whose  sense  of  gratitude  is  thin  and  ineffective, 
whose  passions  are  strong  and  whose  self-control  is 
weak.  And  it  is  not  to  men  of  this  kind  that  we  can 
safely  preach  the  Gospel  of  forgiveness  and  leave 
gratitude  to  do  the  rest.  No  message  of  moral  union 
is  here  sufficient  when  the  very  problem  to  be  solved 
is.  How  is  the  moral  union  in  such  cases  to  be  at- 
tained ?  And  not  only  is  a  moral  union  insufficient 
to  meet  the  case,  but  it  is  an  utterly  inadequate 
explanation  of  the  New  Testament  language.  If  the 
New  Testament  does  not  teach  the  mystical  union  of 
the  beHever  with  Christ,  1  do  not  quite  understand 
what  human  language  could  be  chosen  which  would 
express  that  idea.  The  Pauline  language  is  so  ex- 
plicit that  no  one  would  have  thought  of  challenging 
the  interpretation  had  not  the  idea  itself  been  objec- 
tionable, and  the  Johannine  language  harmonises  well 


Personal  Salvation  289 

with  it.  Paul  felt  that  it  was  no  longer  he  that  lived, 
but  Christ  that  lived  in  him.  He  asserted  in  the  most 
definite  language,  "  He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is 
one  spirit."  Again  and  again  he  speaks  of  the  Christian 
as  "  in  Christ,"  and  uses  language  which  is  emptied 
largely  of  its  meaning  unless  it  is  a  mystical  union 
that  he  has  in  view.  I  freely  grant  that  the  concep- 
tion is  difficult.  We  are  moving  here  in  a  region 
remote  from  our  everyday  life.  We  are  wrestling  with 
the  deepest  mysteries  of  spiritual  experience,  we  are 
touching  the  profound  problems  as  to  the  nature  of 
personahty  and  as  to  the  relation  in  which  as  men  we 
stand  to  Christ.  This  should  absolve  us  from  the 
reproach  of  obscurity,  especially  when  we  remember 
that  a  Gospel  which  left  no  place  for  mystery  could 
hardly  in  the  nature  of  things  be  true.  The  mysterious 
is  not  the  irrational,  and  the  deepest  secrets  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  will  not  be  adequately  ex- 
pressed in  terms  of  shallow  lucidity.  We  are  dealing 
here  wdth  an  experience  that  has  no  counterpart  in 
our  ordinary  life,  and  we  must  therefore  not  shrink 
from  language  which  is  itself  abnormal. 

The  Christian  life,  then,  fundamentally  is  a  life  in 
which  the  human  spirit  is  blended  with  Christ,  and 
blended  so  intimately  that  he  and  Christ  are  one. 
Now  just  as  the  identification  of  Christ  with  the  race 
carried  with  it  that  the  race  passed  through  the  re- 
demptive experiences  through  which  Christ  passed,  so 
the  union  of  the  individual  with  Christ  carries  with  it 

V 


290     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

a  similar  participation  in  His  experience.  He  suffers 
with  Christ,  he  dies  with  Christ,  he  is  raised  with 
Christ,  he  shares  with  Him  His  Ascension  and  sits 
with  Him  in  heavenly  places.  Christ  has  to  suffer  in 
each  of  His  members,  each  has  his  appointed  portion 
to  endure,  and  for  each  before  his  earthly  pilgrimage 
is  done  there  is  still  left  to  be  filled  up  that  which  is 
lacking  of  Christ's  sufferings  in  his  flesh.  The  believer 
also  dies  with  Christ.  Just  as  ideally  he  was  part  of 
the  race  which  was  crucified  in  Christ  on  Calvary,  so 
in  actual  experience  he  knows  what  it  is  to  be  crucified 
with  Christ.  And  thus  his  sufferings  and  death,  be- 
coming through  this  mystical  union  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ,  work  out  results  worthy  of  Him  whose 
sufferings  they  thus  become.  They,  too,  are  woven 
into  Christ's  redemptive  plan,  not  simply  for  the 
individual  who  endures  them,  but  also  for  the  Church 
which  is  His  body.  In  this  crucifixion  with  Christ  he 
realises  that  his  old  nature  is  put  to  death,  that  he 
has  atoned  for  its  sin,  and  that  its  power  for  him  is 
broken.  So,  too,  he  shares  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  from  the  old  life  of  sin  and  moral  paralysis 
he  enters  on  the  new  life  of  holiness,  of  moral  energy 
and  victory,  and  a  will  wholly  attuned  to  the  wOl  of 
God. 

The  apostle  tells  us  that  if  any  man  has  realised 
this  mystical  union  with  Christ  "  he  is  a  new  creature, 
the  old  things  have  passed  away,  behold  they  have 
become  new."    There  is,  first  of  aU,  the  change  in 


Personal  Salvation  291 

man's  status  before  God.  The  old  condition  was  one 
of  guilt  and  condemnation,  the  new  is  one  of  forgive- 
ness and  justification.  In  two  striking  verses  Paul 
has  asserted  this  connexion  between  the  union  with 
Christ  and  the  believer's  status  before  God.  Putting 
it  in  a  negative  form,  he  says,  "  There  is  no  condem- 
nation for  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Putting  it 
in  its  positive  form,  he  speaks  of  being  "  justified  in 
Christ."  Now  here  we  confront  a  well-known  diffi- 
culty. We  are  told  that  God  justifies  the  ungodly. 
The  term  which  the  apostle  uses  means  "  to  declare 
righteous  "  ;  it  is  the  opposite  of  "  condemn,"  as  we 
see  from  the  passage,  "It  is  God  that  justifieth,  who 
is  he  that  shaU  condemn  ?  "  Does  God,  then,  declare 
the  ungodly  to  be  righteous  ?  Does  not  this  statement 
mean  that  God  declares  something  to  be  true  wh  ch, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  false  ?  This  charge  of  im- 
morality has  often  been  urged  against  Paul's  teaching. 
I  beheve,  however,  that  when  we  have  understood  it, 
it  really  does  not  lie  open  to  such  a  criticism.  We 
are  not  moving  in  a  realm  of  fiction.  Paul's  language 
is  paradoxical,  but  it  must  be  read  in  the  light  o  his 
fundamental  conception.  This  is  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied in  Christ,  that  if  he  is  in  Christ  there  is  no  con- 
denmation  for  him.  But  the  very  fact  that  the  un  on 
with  Christ  has  taken  place  has  carried  wth  it  the 
sChical  change.  The  man  who'  is  in  Christ  is  a  new 
creature,  and  it  is  the  new  creature  who  has  become 
such  through  mystical  union  with  his  Saviour  who  is 


292     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

declared  to  be  righteous.  He  who  was  ungodly  has 
now  ceased  to  be  so.  It  is  not  while  he  is  ungodly 
before  he  has  become  one  with  Christ  that  he  is  so 
described,  but  after  the  union  has  been  effected  and 
he  is  ungodly  no  more.  Hence  we  must  not  wring  the 
last  drop  of  meaning,  as  some  are  disposed  to  do,  out 
of  the  expression  **  justifies  the  ungodly,"  but  recog- 
nise that  Paul  is  here  using  language  which,  from  a 
popular  point  of  view,  excellently  expresses  his  mean- 
ing. We  should  none  of  us,  I  presume,  object  to  say 
that  God  declares  the  sinner  righteous  when  he  be- 
lieves in  Christ,  but  we  should  not  ^^ish  to  be  taken 
to  mean  that  his  faith  had  produced  no  radical  change 
in  his  condition.  In  other  words,  justification  is  a 
result  of  the  mystical  union.  It  holds  a  secondary  and 
not  a  primary  place  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation. 
But  it  may  be  said.  Does  not  Paul  refer  justification 
to  faith  as  its  cause  ?  Certainly  he  does,  but  that  in 
no  way  contradicts  the  doctrine  I  have  just  been  ex- 
pounding. For  the  union  \\ith  Christ  is  itself  the  result 
of  faith,  and  since  this  includes  justification,  we  may 
speak  of  God's  declaration  of  innocence  as  resting 
either  upon  imion  with  Christ,  which  is  its  immediate, 
or  faith,  which  is  its  more  remote  cause. 

We  must  not  be  bUnd  to  the  depth  and  richness  of 
Paul's  conception  of  faith.  It  is  not  the  mere  recog- 
nition that  a  certain  set  of  historical  facts  is  true,  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  died  on  the  Cross  and  rose  again 
from  the  dead.    Nor  is  it  the  acceptance  of  a  theo- 


Personal  Salvation  293 

logical  interpretation  of  these  facts,  that  they  released 
energies  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  This  coldly 
intellectual  way  of  regarding  them  is  alien  altogether 
from  the  evangelical  idea  of  faith.  There  is  intended 
by  it  rather  a  temper  and  attitude  of  the  soul.  It 
implies  as  its  necessary  condition  the  sinner's  conscious- 
ness of  his  condition,  of  his  guilt  and  moral  helpless- 
ness, and  the  impossibility  of  releasing  himself  from 
either  one  or  the  other.  In  this  state  of  condemnation 
and  impotence,  finding  in  him.self  and  in  the  world 
about  him  no  relief  for  his  condition,  he  is  prepared 
to  respond  to  the  message  of  salvation  in  Christ. 
Casting  away  all  thought  of  his  own  merit  as  com- 
mending him  to  God,  for  he  feels  himself  to  be  a 
sinner  in  God's  sight,  renouncing  all  efforts  at  self- 
reformation  as  superficial  and  ineffective,  his  whole 
being  turns  with  a  glad  sense  of  confidence  to  Him 
that  is  mighty  to  save,  with  the  deep  gratitude  of  one 
who  has  been  saved  from  despair.  Cutting  himself 
loose  from  all  the  supports  on  which  he  has  hitherto 
rested,  he  takes  the  supreme  risk  of  faith  and  launches 
himself  into  the  void,  but  he  makes  his  venture  in  the 
confidence  that  he  will  not  be  left  to  his  fate,  but  be 
caught  and  held  fast  by  the  everlasting  arms.  And 
this  faith,  in  which  self-surrender,  love,  gratitude,  and 
implicit  trust  are  mingled,  effects  the  mystical  union 
between  the  soul  and  its  Saviour.  The  intellectual 
element  is  presupposed  in  it,  the  believer  must  recog- 
nise the  existence  of  God,  his  own  sin,  and  God's 
u  1 


294     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

reaction  against  it,  his  inability  to  attain  the  moral 
ideal  which  God  demands  from  him,  the  truth  of 
the  great  redemptive  facts  proclaimed  in  the  Gospel. 
This  is  the  indispensable  foundation  of  faith.  But 
faith  is  something  which  embraces  also  the  emotions 
and  the  will,  it  is  the  movement  of  the  whole  per- 
sonality, the  soul's  flight  for  refuge  to  Christ.  Its 
inmost  mystery,  indeed,  baffles  analysis ;  how  it 
effects  the  mystical  union  is  God*s  secret  and  not  ours. 
But  its  mystical  effect  must  be  closely  allied  to  its 
emotional  element. 

We  do  a  great  injustice  to  religion  when  we  disparage 
its  emotional  quality.  It  is  a  danger  into  which  the 
quiet  and  sedate  and  conventional  are  particularly 
liable  to  fall,  although  we  must  not  omit  the  superior 
people  whose  attitude  to  life  is  that  of  a  one-sided 
intellectualism.  But  the  student  of  religion  is  well 
aware  how  large  and  decisive  a  part  is  played  in  it  by 
emotion.  And  where  we  are  dealing  with  a  God  who 
is  conceived  not  simply  as  the  philosopher  thinks  of 
Him,  but  as  the  Father  of  spirits  whose  inmost  nature 
IS  love,  the  religion  can  be  no  other  than  emotional 
in  character.  The  term  must,  of  course,  be  used  in  no 
narrow  sense.  The  expression  of  emotion  depends 
very  largely  on  temperament,  on  external  conditions, 
on  culture.  It  is  not  th6  brawHng  brook  which  runs 
deepest,  and  the  emotion  of  the  still  mystic  as  he 
broods  in  his  cell  may  be  deep  and  intense  to  a  degree 
far  surpassing  that  expressed  in  noisier  demonstration^ 


Personal  Salvation  295 

The  question  is  not,  Do  sparks  fly  off  at  the  surface  ? 
but,  Does  the  fire  glow  hot  at  the  centre  ?  But 
whether  it  is  in  the  rapture  of  the  revival  service,  or 
in  the  ecstasy  of  the  mystic's  contemplation,  the  vital 
thing  is  that  God  and  the  soul  should  meet,  and  in 
the  shock  of  that  contact  the  souFs  deepest  bliss  and 
satisfaction  should  be  won.  The  experience  hardly 
lends  itself  to  analysis,  but  peace  is  perhaps  the  best 
description.  The  rebel  who  chose  his  own  will  rather 
than  the  will  of  God  has  laid  down  his  arms  and  made 
a  complete  surrender.  And  now  he  enjoys  peace  with 
God,  from  whom  he  had  been  estranged.  In  himself 
the  inward  discord  has  ceased,  self  has  been  replaced 
by  Christ.  He  is  no  longer  distracted  between  the 
lower  and  the  higher  nature,  nor  does  his  better  self 
chafe  under  the  dominion  of  sin  and  the  flesh. 

A  new  character,  as  well  as  a  new  status,  flows 
inevitably  from  union  with  Christ.  The  flesh  has  been 
crucified,  and  thus  sin  has  lost  its  fortress  within  the 
camp  from  which  it  ruled  the  hapless  victim  of  its 
tyranny.  He  is  no  longer  under  the  Law,  he  has  risen 
into  the  freedom  of  the  children  of  God.  He  has  died 
with  Christ  to  sin,  and  in  union  with  Him  lives  a  new 
life.  His  life  is  the  expression  no  longer  of  the  old 
self,  but  of  Christ,  who  lives  at  the  very  centre  of  his 
personality.  He  is  a  member  of  Christ,  in  immediate 
contact  with  the  Head,  drawing  from  Him  all  the 
supplies  of  life  and  power,  controlled  by  Him  in 
thought,  word,  and  action. 


296     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its   Truth 

Now  this  representation  of  the  Christian  as  Hving 
a  life  controlled  in  every  detail  by  the  indwelling 
Christ  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  experience,  inas- 
much as  even  in  the  Church  nothing  seems  to  be  rarer 
than  a  saint.  We  can  leave  aside  the  case  of  nominal 
Christians,  whose  profession  is  in  flagrant  contrast 
with  their  Hfe  and  character.  But  even  the  really 
good  people  frequently  distress  us  by  flaws  which  are 
out  of  harmony  with  the  name  they  are  anxious  to 
adorn.  What,  then,  are  we  to  say  on  Paul's  doctrine 
in  the  hght  of  these  famihar  facts  ?  Paul  himself  was 
perfectly  aware  of  them.  He  was  not  only  a  specula- 
tive theologian  of  the  highest  eminence,  but  he  was  a 
shepherd  of  souls.  He  was  constantly  confronted  by 
difi&culties  of  this  very  kind.  He  therefore  did  not 
feel  that  his  own  doctrine  was  contradicted  by  ex- 
perience. The  question  is,  no  doubt,  a  difficult  one, 
but  I  believe  the  solution  to  be  as  follo^^^.  When 
Paul  is  dealing  with  the  subject  as  a  theologian,  he 
treats  it  from  what  we  may  call  an  ideal  or  absolute 
point  of  view.  But  he  sets  before  us  the  principles 
which  he  discerns  at  work  as  they  are  in  their  intrinsic 
character,  not  as  they  are  modified  in  action  by  other 
conditions.  It  is  a  great  advantage  for  us  that  he  has 
disengaged  these  principles  from  their  temporary 
limitations  and  suffered  us  to  see  the  whole  Divine 
drama  of  salvation  in  its  essential  meaning.  Ideally 
sanctification  precedes  justification,  but  in  experience 
it  is  otherwise.    I  believe  that  we  may  plausibly  con- 


Personal  Salvation  297 

nect  this  with  the  strength  of  faith  exercised  at  the 
opening  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  normally  a  feeble 
faith,  which,  while  it  is  the  promise  of  all  that  Paul 
in  his  boldest  flights  describes,  yet  effects  only  a  rudi- 
mentary change.  As  the  Christian  life  deepens  and 
advances,  this  faith  grows  stronger  and  the  union 
with  Christ  which  it  creates  more  intimate.  And,  on 
the  other  side,  the  flesh,  so  deeply  seated  in  the  per- 
sonality, fights  desperately  for  every  inch  of  ground. 
Thus  it  is  that  the  real  and  the  ideal  so  rarely 
coincide.  To  the  question  whether  in  this  world 
they  could  coincide,  I  think  that  Paul  would  have 
answered,  "  According  to  your  faith  be  it  done  imto 
you." 

This  union  with  Christ  finds  its  consummation  in 
the  heavenly  destiny  which  it  opens  up  before  the 
believer.  However  we  may  speculate  on  the  mysteri- 
ous problems  of  the  future,  in  this  respect,  at  least, 
the  Christian  can  feel  no  misgiving.  By  death  Jesus 
escaped  from  the  power  of  death  and  can  die  no  more. 
So  those  who  are  one  with  Him  participate  in  His 
deathless  Ufe.  They  cannot  be  less  immortal  than  He 
is.  His  existence  and  theirs  are  twined  together  at 
the  roots.  Their  life  is  hid  with  Him  in  God,  but  the 
secret  forces  which  are  withdrawn  from  the  gaze  of 
men  will  be  revealed  when  they  enter  into  possession 
of  their  glorious  inheritance.  It  is  with  no  tawdry 
splendours  that  we  would  imagine  it  bedecked.  But 
all  for  which  the  heart  most  hungers,  all  to  which  the 


2^     Christianity :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth 

pure  spirit  most  aspires,  the  satisfaction  of  love's 
longing,  the  attainment  of  the  loftiest  ideals — these 
are  the  saints'  inheritance  awaiting  them  in  the  realm 
of  hght. 


THB  END 


V 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

uoi  b     1955  LU 

-  t..-.'6^RTfl 

,^co^^ 

>.,^i  »*  "^^ 



■"^ 

YB  22113 


304075 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


